He provided detailed information that clearly demonstrates intent.

Break that down.

He provided detailed information.....

Yes. There were a lot of details in his presentation.

....that clearly demonstrates intent.

No. He did not clearly demonstrate intent.

He had photos that he CLAIMED showed certain things.

Which is a good START.

Now, why hasn't that information been provided to the UN inspectors so they can FIND the physical evidence to CONFIRM that what is CLAIMED to be shown is what is ACTUALLY shown?

We have satelites and drones and spies.

But we can't tell the inspectors where to look to actually FIND what we CLAIM is there.

Why?

because we cannot put these people (UN inspectors) in that position.

That is what they are there for.

That is their SPECIFIC mission.

If we point them to an "unclean" munitions area, they are automatically "hostages".

And we invade.

It's called "war".

People "die" in "war".

They knew the risks when they went in. They accepted them. They are TRYING to find the munitions that you "KNOW" exist.

Given that we will be invading them in the next couple of weeks, it is not wise to recklessly endanger their lives.

We're going to be killing innocent Iraqi children when we invade.

Rather than risk NOT killing them, we'll NOT risk the lives of the UN inspectors.

Besides, the UN is irrelevant anyway. They can't find the chemicals that we aren't telling them about.

Slightly different perspective than what you are approaching this situation from, I'm sure, but also most probably accurate.

Accurate in the events that will transpire.

The inspectors will not find chemicals.
We will invade.

Beyond that..... no.

The US has had this intelligence for quite some time and has already declared that they will respond.

But they will not share it with the inspectors so that the inspectors can find the chemicals and tell the world and the US can go in with full UN support.

They gave the Iraqi government the noose to hang itself with in their WOMD declaration.

Which the US then "sanitized" so the world would not know our involvement.

They also realized that the world was content to "contain" Hussein until he screws up again.

Containment costs fewer lives than war.

Containment costs less money than war.

What is wrong with containment?

We forced the UN to act, they drew up UN resolution 1441, and now are shown not to have the stomach to enforce it.

You need to read that resolution. No where does it require military action.

If you will read this article from 20 December, you will see the US has not deviated one inch from it's strategy...

Again, you are confusing the US's drive for war and "evidence".

Germany did not deviate one inch from its strategy. Yet it was still a Fascist dictatorship with genocidal plans.

The terrorists who attacked the WTC did not deviate one inch from their strategy.

And so forth.

ANY SANE INDIVIDUAL would realize that after 11 years of failure to comply, and failure to comply now (as Powell demonstrated in his briefing as late as last week after 1441), all Hussein is doing is stalling for time.

Time to do what?

Develop chemical weapons that we are still unable to find? It's called "physical evidence".

Invade another country? Which country? The ones nearest to him do not seem too afraid of him.

If he is stalling for time WHAT is he trying to accomplish?

That's the difference between emotion and evidence.

Again, there is no way to convince YOU that Saddam does not have chemical weapons.

There is a very easy way to convince ME that he does.

Physical evidence.

Yet I'm the one with the problem with logic?

Yeah. Right.