Yeah, I hear ya bro'. I mean, like, fuck it. Ya know? If he can't call me The Dude then that's his trip Man. All I want is my rug back and some libogg.so and why bother with the rest? The Dude will carry on. Fuck it.
Go ahead and flame if you want. I was being a touch facecious with my example since few would claim that Beethoven didn't "create" the Eroica Symphony whether they've studied music or not.
Personally I think he did create the Eroica Symphony. We're not talking about the Stones' cover of "I can't get no Satisfaction". We're talking about music ex nihlo. The medium itself is second to none as grist for this particular philosphic mill. Music is the most mathematic and mysterious of the Arts. Of Math we can ask: Does Man invent or discover it? Aesthetic questions about Music can approach this kind of depth quite easily.
Have you ever listened to any Schoenberg? I'm not a fan of twelve tone music myself, but I can't deny for an instant the creative genius that spawned it. His music stands in relation to the tonality that came before as Relativity stands to Newtonian Mechanics.
There's a lot to be uncovered in this discussion but let's cut to the quick: Did the Eroica Symphony exist before Beethoven wrote it? If not then can't we call him it's "creator"?
'Cause, like, The Dude here is suckin' down 'nother Caucasian and wonderin' what yer trip is Man. I mean WOW. That's some heavy shit there bro'. I wuz jus bowlin' with, like, Walter and Donny and they were like, well Donny didn't say much, but Walter went in on how he didn't see his buddies die in 'Nam just to be stuck with the Windows Media Player format, but I was like maybe ogg is cool just 'cause, y'know?
That's not what I'm talking about. I've read the arguments claiming that SHM adds no significant overhead to X11 performance and I believe them. From what I've gathered X11 was written with the network transparent client/server split in mind in the first place, and left actually drawing stuff to be implemented around and after the wire protocol the architects came up with at the time. What I'm wondering is if this approach has left us squeezing "big" GUI ideas directed at powerful (and underutilized?) GPUs through a skinny pipe that can only speak "baby talk".
Here's an analogy: Suppose you point your browser at a web page with a picture that isn't being made available in a compressed image file format. Your browser has become a graphic server ("Mozzy here. Tell me what to draw and I'll draw it.") and the remote site has become a client ("I've got something to show to chez69. Let me tell you about it."). The site could talk to your browser in "turtle graphics" (i.e. move left one pixel and draw a red dot, then move down one pixel and draw a black one) or it could talk in SVG. The latter case preserves higher level information for as long as possible. That allows the "server" to rasterize the image in the most efficient manner possible and minimizes network traffic. If your GPU can draw beziers and gradients in hardware (I don't know if that's something contemporary GPUs can do or not) then your "server" will be able to tap that. If your GPU lacks that but your CPU has SIMD-type instructions available they can be put to use. On any hardware the SVG case has the option of "falling back" on server side software routines but the "turtle graphics" case can use nothing but software without resynthesizing the greater context.
Understand that I'm not knocking X at all. I'm not qualified to write a windowing environment. I don't understand how X extensions work. I don't know what video cards can do in that middle ground between a linear framebuffer and 3D acceleration. I presume there are CS terms that could swiftly capture the query I have in mind but I lack the lingo. I'm not posting to make a point or argue a case. I'm trying to ask a question about design methodology that occured to me when reading osu-neko's post. Our current *nix windowing environment has many wrapped layers on the client side. I wonder if any hypothetical successor to X written without network transparency designed in from the beginning would end up benefitting from an object hierarchy that allows for a more sophisticated use of hardware. I wonder if the layers of abstraction would sift themselves out in a "cleaner" fashion (not to imply that they're "unclean" right now -- only that they might be better. Who am I to judge?). I wonder what technical limitations would prevent us from keeping the network transparent baby by adding it later if some mythic *nix windowing environment made the current X protocol look like bath water.
You are begging the question, "What does the word 'create' mean?" Did Beethoven "create" the Eroica Symphony? The notes and instruments were already there. All he did was arrange them...
XWin.org used to be Keith P.'s/. style news forum. Did that url end up landing on freedesktop.org when Xouvert was started or has that happened just now?
I have a question for any developers out there that is related to this notion. Much of the debate about whether X11 should be enhanced further or scrapped and replaced centers around network transparency. There are pro and con debates over the utility of such a feature and it's impact on the performance and graphic capability of the server itself.
X11 achieved this by designing around a client/server wire protocol. Is it not possible to design a windowing system strictly for the local case first and then add remote capability later? Couldn't network transparency be achieved with wrappers that negotiate permission, capability, etc? Perhaps the objection is that one still ends up having to craft a protocol that allows programs to "talk graphics" over ether, but I think the advantage would be that meta-information gets to stay "meta" for as long as possible before it's rasterized. I remember reading one critic of X11 (here on/.) note that the problem with X is simply that it's graphic primitives are "too primitive". Wouldn't reversing the design methodology of any possible successor eliminate that bottleneck? I am supposing that adhering to this principal would benefit the entire architechture of such a windowing system by allowing drivers to be written that fully utilize hardware in any possible scenario from Radeon 9700 to linear framebuffer. Is there a worthwhile notion in here somewhere that finer minds might flesh out?
Read through that whole thread and you'll find that two of the three respondants explicitly ask "what does this mean?" and the one who doesn't wants clairification about the future.
Re:Given that they need the money, I doubt it.
on
EMC To Acquire VMware
·
· Score: 1
...made emulating Gates non-PC...
This is a:
a) pun
c) oxymoron
b) double entendre
d) riddle
e) non-sequitur
e) paradox
f) there's something funny going on there but I can't quite put my finger on it.
To add a bit to your point I'd like to note that just because Hussein was a murderous dick-head it doesn't mean he was incapable of pragmatism. I don't think he would have abandoned WMDs if they were easy for him to have fabricated, but given his military limitations, I think his post Gulf War modus operandi was to simply rule Iraq with an iron hand. He had already waged one ultimately fruitless war against Iran and had been roundly defeated when he made a stab at the sea in Kuwait. His post 9/11 reaction was consistent with someone who enjoyed "schadenfreude" from the sidelines -- just like his $25K bonuses to Palestinian suicide dorks -- because he knew he just didn't have a chance duking it out with the big boys. In short, however much he might have liked to be the Arabic Stalin, he just couldn't play it out beyond his own borders and he knew it. We could have let this guy rot on the throne. He's in his mid-60's. 20 years max and he would have been gone. That's at least how long it will take for the American-Iraq war to be absorbed into world history anyway.
There was data that showed that Iraq still had chemical weapons:
Where?
There was the pile of missing warheads that Iraq claimed to have destroyed, but refused to present documentation on... [and a] pile of missing material that could be used in the construction of chemical weapons.
Reagan on Iran-Contra, "I don't remember."
There was testimony from defectors that they had worked on chemical weapons programs.
Like Chalabi's testimony about money changing hands between Hussein's government and Al-Quaeda? He claimed to have documentary evidence but couldn't produce it. In fact, half of Washington thought him a fraud, but they couldn't trump those that wanted to believe him.
There was Iraq's histroy of deception and obstruction of UN inspectors.
No doubt. Should that be enough for an invasion?
...an otherwise intelligent person could draw the conclusion that the Iraqis were hiding a chemical weapons program. Once that conclusion was drawn, all other evidence was interpreted in such a way as to reinforce that conclusion.
If you really want to draw that conclusion you can, but the only "intelligent" conclusion was "we don't know", which would have softened or made irrelevant the "whoops, guess not." If we were arguing about whether or not some new airship would fly we could say lets give it a shot and see if it works. Since we were talking about a course of action that would involve the death of American soldiers (none of whom have parents in the Administration), the spending of billions of dollars (how badly does a crap economy affect Rumsfeld or Bush?), and a major loss of credibility with much of the world I don't see how an "intelligent" person wouldn't have wanted a little more certainty.
Would it kill us to take a deep breath and look at how far things have gone? Iraq has consumed civic conversation in our country for the past 18 months despite a number of problems (like post 9/11 unemployment) that have continued unabated. We're actually debating whether or not a defeated "enemy" might have been able to harm us or someone we like. How's this for a principal: if we don't know for sure a that a foreign country can fuck us, we shouldn't hit the freak switch -- especially when the button-masters are in no danger of going without health care, income, or children, and they never put themselves at physical risk when they were too young to be given war-creating power.
I know that you are just reporting your impressions rather than asserting an "argument"/spin on the matter and then filling in the blanks after the fact with tidbits, but... you need to wake up.
If you could put yourself into the body of a 5 year old and say, "Unca Wumsfeld, did you and pwesident Bush wie about IwAq?" uncle Rumsfeld would gently chuckle, pat you on the head, and then walk away. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell. and Chalabi all know what the truth is and all of them have lied straight into the camera. Actually, let me amend that. The example of Rumsfeld I have in mind is really more of him just being a dick rather than him lying. My assertions about the rest of them stand. I would like to point out an irony about Powell though: My impression is that he was the most dovish member of the administration in regards to Iraq. The irony is that he is the only one who's actually served in uniform, the only one who would have avoided a war with Iraq, and is the best liar out of all of them. He truly is gifted and it's a pity we're wasting him on menial tasks like telling the UN how many tons of bad-guy-shit were itching Krazy Saddam's trigger finger.
You're either really naive or clinging to something to avoid facing the truth. "The rest of the world" never made assertions claiming that Iraq was a hotbed of doomsday devices. In fact, most of the world bitterly opposed our war in Iraq. Our closest ally might even trade in it's PM just because they're so divided about acting on "facts" that no one really believes. They aren't "fools" or "dupes" at all. The pre-war speech Bush made citing evidence of a nuclear arms program was a bald faced lie that hinged on "evidence" thoroughly discredited as a two bit hoax a year beforehand. Everyone knew this when he said it.
I think you're just naive, but remember it takes two to lie. One person to tell the lie, and another to believe it.
So when Russia had it's back to the wall and didn't use ICBMs, I guess that means they didn't exist?
What are you talking about? Russia hasn't been invaded since WWII. They never claimed to be free of ICBMs. Are you talking about the former Soviet Union? It collapsed under the weight of its Communist economy... Again, what are you talking about?
There where people from within Iraqs military saying they exisited.
No, there were Iraqi scientists during the lead-up to the war claiming that they weren't working on bad shit, and there have been scientists coming forward after the fall of Baghdad who claim the bad shit (nuke or otherwise) just couldn't be pulled off. The only one who has given the finger to any serious bad guy stuff is Chalabi, but he's a lying sack of shit who won't come clean however noble his end may have been. Could you point out one Iraqi not on that stupid deck of cards that "knows" about Hussein's WMDs and then explain why they haven't been able to provide us with the evidence we need to be exonerated in the eyes of the doubting... uh, Earth?
If they didn't exist, why didn't he let the UN weapon inspectors do there job? --> Normally I would post that because, who wants people troopng around your country? but he did sign an agreement after the '91 conflict.
He signed an agreement after the '91 conflict because he lost and had to either keep what he had (which didn't involve a loss of territory or sovereignty) or go through a little more "loosing". As far as the inspections go, we were the ones who said fuck it.
British intellegence told us that they had information telling them they existed.
No they didn't. We went to them with our secret intelligence -- the kind that says, "Hey guys, we have the proof but can't make it public." -- and Blair told the rest of the world that we were on to something. We had to bring them on board.
Perhaps he was in Bahgdad and fear for his life? He is cowadly.
Huh? If he had bad shit he could have used it at the southern border.
For the record, I think Bush is one of the worse presidents, ever.
There have been worse presidents certainly. I was with the guy to a degree up until he sidelined Afghanistan and Terrorism for declaring war on Iraq. I've got to wonder just what the fuck you think this guy has done that's so bad if it doesn't involve the bullshit he 's embraced over Iraq.
Next dork that would ask you to explain Iraqi WMDs? We're not talking about the Flat Earth Society. We're talking about something that has claimed 400 American lives, 2000+ GI limbs, and a shitload of $$$ at a time when the economy has been shedding jobs like mad. If you want to be that flip you could at least take the time to explain how and why a power loving war monger like Hussein would auto-disarm because he's about to be overthrown.
No thank you. I won't drive through. Hussein already proved he was willing to gas the Iranian neighbors that he wanted to conquer. I can't fathom why he wouldn't gas invaders who made it clear that they wanted him eliminated. He wasn't being driven from Kuwait. He was being driven from power completely. The opening salvo of the war was a direct missile strike on his life. He had already publicly proven himself capable of mass murder, had nothing to lose, and must have been pissed. If he actually had any WMDs he would have used them.
He didn't have them when we crossed his borders because he couldn't make them himself. He had them when he fought the Iranians and the Kurds because we sold them to him.
Discounting the fact that Iraq has been under intense scrutiny for over a decade I've got to wonder why we should think it more likely that we could rely on Iraqi informants to finger Hussein sooner that they would point out a cache of missiles. I don't mean to jump on your back since you've left the existence of WMDs open. I only want to point out that if we could find one human that scared the shit out of 25,000,000 people we should be able to find at least one of many inanimate objects. If WMDs were there they had to be known about by a wider circle of people than those who knew Hussein personally or else they would be useless.
Take the most obscure scenario possible: You're an Iraqi assigned to man an "illegal" SCUD armed with weaponized Anthrax. Your army has been defeated and you're out of a job. If you were willing to cooperate with the victors but afraid to do so what would be easier; confessing knowledge of some now-useless machine that many others know about, or ratting out the deposed dictator who might come back to kill your familly. Of course, that presumes you're privy to knowing where the renagade dictator is, but that's my point. There have got to be many more people who know where these mystery weapons were compared to those who knew Hussein's whereabouts after the fall of Baghdad, and it's got to be easier for those people to speak out over an oil drum than for a familly member to rat out a sentient, murderous moving target.
Slashdot Mirror
Why yes, not "funny" but "interesting"...
Yeah, I hear ya bro'. I mean, like, fuck it. Ya know? If he can't call me The Dude then that's his trip Man. All I want is my rug back and some libogg.so and why bother with the rest? The Dude will carry on. Fuck it.
Personally I think he did create the Eroica Symphony. We're not talking about the Stones' cover of "I can't get no Satisfaction". We're talking about music ex nihlo. The medium itself is second to none as grist for this particular philosphic mill. Music is the most mathematic and mysterious of the Arts. Of Math we can ask: Does Man invent or discover it? Aesthetic questions about Music can approach this kind of depth quite easily.
Have you ever listened to any Schoenberg? I'm not a fan of twelve tone music myself, but I can't deny for an instant the creative genius that spawned it. His music stands in relation to the tonality that came before as Relativity stands to Newtonian Mechanics.
There's a lot to be uncovered in this discussion but let's cut to the quick: Did the Eroica Symphony exist before Beethoven wrote it? If not then can't we call him it's "creator"?
'Cause, like, The Dude here is suckin' down 'nother Caucasian and wonderin' what yer trip is Man. I mean WOW. That's some heavy shit there bro'. I wuz jus bowlin' with, like, Walter and Donny and they were like, well Donny didn't say much, but Walter went in on how he didn't see his buddies die in 'Nam just to be stuck with the Windows Media Player format, but I was like maybe ogg is cool just 'cause, y'know?
Ha! Touche...
I had always thought it was Mark Twain who said that. Go figure.
Cool. It's good to hear xwin.org will carry on.
Here's an analogy: Suppose you point your browser at a web page with a picture that isn't being made available in a compressed image file format. Your browser has become a graphic server ("Mozzy here. Tell me what to draw and I'll draw it.") and the remote site has become a client ("I've got something to show to chez69. Let me tell you about it."). The site could talk to your browser in "turtle graphics" (i.e. move left one pixel and draw a red dot, then move down one pixel and draw a black one) or it could talk in SVG. The latter case preserves higher level information for as long as possible. That allows the "server" to rasterize the image in the most efficient manner possible and minimizes network traffic. If your GPU can draw beziers and gradients in hardware (I don't know if that's something contemporary GPUs can do or not) then your "server" will be able to tap that. If your GPU lacks that but your CPU has SIMD-type instructions available they can be put to use. On any hardware the SVG case has the option of "falling back" on server side software routines but the "turtle graphics" case can use nothing but software without resynthesizing the greater context.
Understand that I'm not knocking X at all. I'm not qualified to write a windowing environment. I don't understand how X extensions work. I don't know what video cards can do in that middle ground between a linear framebuffer and 3D acceleration. I presume there are CS terms that could swiftly capture the query I have in mind but I lack the lingo. I'm not posting to make a point or argue a case. I'm trying to ask a question about design methodology that occured to me when reading osu-neko's post. Our current *nix windowing environment has many wrapped layers on the client side. I wonder if any hypothetical successor to X written without network transparency designed in from the beginning would end up benefitting from an object hierarchy that allows for a more sophisticated use of hardware. I wonder if the layers of abstraction would sift themselves out in a "cleaner" fashion (not to imply that they're "unclean" right now -- only that they might be better. Who am I to judge?). I wonder what technical limitations would prevent us from keeping the network transparent baby by adding it later if some mythic *nix windowing environment made the current X protocol look like bath water.
P.S. Pardon the mixed metaphor.
You are begging the question, "What does the word 'create' mean?" Did Beethoven "create" the Eroica Symphony? The notes and instruments were already there. All he did was arrange them...
XWin.org used to be Keith P.'s /. style news forum. Did that url end up landing on freedesktop.org when Xouvert was started or has that happened just now?
I have a lithp you insensive clod?
X11 achieved this by designing around a client/server wire protocol. Is it not possible to design a windowing system strictly for the local case first and then add remote capability later? Couldn't network transparency be achieved with wrappers that negotiate permission, capability, etc? Perhaps the objection is that one still ends up having to craft a protocol that allows programs to "talk graphics" over ether, but I think the advantage would be that meta-information gets to stay "meta" for as long as possible before it's rasterized. I remember reading one critic of X11 (here on /.) note that the problem with X is simply that it's graphic primitives are "too primitive". Wouldn't reversing the design methodology of any possible successor eliminate that bottleneck? I am supposing that adhering to this principal would benefit the entire architechture of such a windowing system by allowing drivers to be written that fully utilize hardware in any possible scenario from Radeon 9700 to linear framebuffer. Is there a worthwhile notion in here somewhere that finer minds might flesh out?
Read through that whole thread and you'll find that two of the three respondants explicitly ask "what does this mean?" and the one who doesn't wants clairification about the future.
This is a:
a) pun
c) oxymoron
b) double entendre
d) riddle
e) non-sequitur
e) paradox
f) there's something funny going on there but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Thanks bro, I've wanted to skip that class more often.
To add a bit to your point I'd like to note that just because Hussein was a murderous dick-head it doesn't mean he was incapable of pragmatism. I don't think he would have abandoned WMDs if they were easy for him to have fabricated, but given his military limitations, I think his post Gulf War modus operandi was to simply rule Iraq with an iron hand. He had already waged one ultimately fruitless war against Iran and had been roundly defeated when he made a stab at the sea in Kuwait. His post 9/11 reaction was consistent with someone who enjoyed "schadenfreude" from the sidelines -- just like his $25K bonuses to Palestinian suicide dorks -- because he knew he just didn't have a chance duking it out with the big boys. In short, however much he might have liked to be the Arabic Stalin, he just couldn't play it out beyond his own borders and he knew it. We could have let this guy rot on the throne. He's in his mid-60's. 20 years max and he would have been gone. That's at least how long it will take for the American-Iraq war to be absorbed into world history anyway.
Where?
There was the pile of missing warheads that Iraq claimed to have destroyed, but refused to present documentation on... [and a] pile of missing material that could be used in the construction of chemical weapons.
Reagan on Iran-Contra, "I don't remember."
There was testimony from defectors that they had worked on chemical weapons programs.
Like Chalabi's testimony about money changing hands between Hussein's government and Al-Quaeda? He claimed to have documentary evidence but couldn't produce it. In fact, half of Washington thought him a fraud, but they couldn't trump those that wanted to believe him.
There was Iraq's histroy of deception and obstruction of UN inspectors.
No doubt. Should that be enough for an invasion?
If you really want to draw that conclusion you can, but the only "intelligent" conclusion was "we don't know", which would have softened or made irrelevant the "whoops, guess not." If we were arguing about whether or not some new airship would fly we could say lets give it a shot and see if it works. Since we were talking about a course of action that would involve the death of American soldiers (none of whom have parents in the Administration), the spending of billions of dollars (how badly does a crap economy affect Rumsfeld or Bush?), and a major loss of credibility with much of the world I don't see how an "intelligent" person wouldn't have wanted a little more certainty.
Would it kill us to take a deep breath and look at how far things have gone? Iraq has consumed civic conversation in our country for the past 18 months despite a number of problems (like post 9/11 unemployment) that have continued unabated. We're actually debating whether or not a defeated "enemy" might have been able to harm us or someone we like. How's this for a principal: if we don't know for sure a that a foreign country can fuck us, we shouldn't hit the freak switch -- especially when the button-masters are in no danger of going without health care, income, or children, and they never put themselves at physical risk when they were too young to be given war-creating power.
Hey, that's not a bad point.
If you could put yourself into the body of a 5 year old and say, "Unca Wumsfeld, did you and pwesident Bush wie about IwAq?" uncle Rumsfeld would gently chuckle, pat you on the head, and then walk away. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell. and Chalabi all know what the truth is and all of them have lied straight into the camera. Actually, let me amend that. The example of Rumsfeld I have in mind is really more of him just being a dick rather than him lying. My assertions about the rest of them stand. I would like to point out an irony about Powell though: My impression is that he was the most dovish member of the administration in regards to Iraq. The irony is that he is the only one who's actually served in uniform, the only one who would have avoided a war with Iraq, and is the best liar out of all of them. He truly is gifted and it's a pity we're wasting him on menial tasks like telling the UN how many tons of bad-guy-shit were itching Krazy Saddam's trigger finger.
You're either really naive or clinging to something to avoid facing the truth. "The rest of the world" never made assertions claiming that Iraq was a hotbed of doomsday devices. In fact, most of the world bitterly opposed our war in Iraq. Our closest ally might even trade in it's PM just because they're so divided about acting on "facts" that no one really believes. They aren't "fools" or "dupes" at all. The pre-war speech Bush made citing evidence of a nuclear arms program was a bald faced lie that hinged on "evidence" thoroughly discredited as a two bit hoax a year beforehand. Everyone knew this when he said it.
I think you're just naive, but remember it takes two to lie. One person to tell the lie, and another to believe it.
What are you talking about? Russia hasn't been invaded since WWII. They never claimed to be free of ICBMs. Are you talking about the former Soviet Union? It collapsed under the weight of its Communist economy... Again, what are you talking about?
There where people from within Iraqs military saying they exisited.
No, there were Iraqi scientists during the lead-up to the war claiming that they weren't working on bad shit, and there have been scientists coming forward after the fall of Baghdad who claim the bad shit (nuke or otherwise) just couldn't be pulled off. The only one who has given the finger to any serious bad guy stuff is Chalabi, but he's a lying sack of shit who won't come clean however noble his end may have been. Could you point out one Iraqi not on that stupid deck of cards that "knows" about Hussein's WMDs and then explain why they haven't been able to provide us with the evidence we need to be exonerated in the eyes of the doubting... uh, Earth?
If they didn't exist, why didn't he let the UN weapon inspectors do there job? --> Normally I would post that because, who wants people troopng around your country? but he did sign an agreement after the '91 conflict.
He signed an agreement after the '91 conflict because he lost and had to either keep what he had (which didn't involve a loss of territory or sovereignty) or go through a little more "loosing". As far as the inspections go, we were the ones who said fuck it.
British intellegence told us that they had information telling them they existed.
No they didn't. We went to them with our secret intelligence -- the kind that says, "Hey guys, we have the proof but can't make it public." -- and Blair told the rest of the world that we were on to something. We had to bring them on board.
Perhaps he was in Bahgdad and fear for his life? He is cowadly.
Huh? If he had bad shit he could have used it at the southern border.
For the record, I think Bush is one of the worse presidents, ever.
There have been worse presidents certainly. I was with the guy to a degree up until he sidelined Afghanistan and Terrorism for declaring war on Iraq. I've got to wonder just what the fuck you think this guy has done that's so bad if it doesn't involve the bullshit he 's embraced over Iraq.
Next dork that would ask you to explain Iraqi WMDs? We're not talking about the Flat Earth Society. We're talking about something that has claimed 400 American lives, 2000+ GI limbs, and a shitload of $$$ at a time when the economy has been shedding jobs like mad. If you want to be that flip you could at least take the time to explain how and why a power loving war monger like Hussein would auto-disarm because he's about to be overthrown.
No thank you. I won't drive through. Hussein already proved he was willing to gas the Iranian neighbors that he wanted to conquer. I can't fathom why he wouldn't gas invaders who made it clear that they wanted him eliminated. He wasn't being driven from Kuwait. He was being driven from power completely. The opening salvo of the war was a direct missile strike on his life. He had already publicly proven himself capable of mass murder, had nothing to lose, and must have been pissed. If he actually had any WMDs he would have used them.
P.S. Cool nick.
Why has this been modded "flamebait"? Could someone else explain why WMDs weren't used against our troops?
Take the most obscure scenario possible: You're an Iraqi assigned to man an "illegal" SCUD armed with weaponized Anthrax. Your army has been defeated and you're out of a job. If you were willing to cooperate with the victors but afraid to do so what would be easier; confessing knowledge of some now-useless machine that many others know about, or ratting out the deposed dictator who might come back to kill your familly. Of course, that presumes you're privy to knowing where the renagade dictator is, but that's my point. There have got to be many more people who know where these mystery weapons were compared to those who knew Hussein's whereabouts after the fall of Baghdad, and it's got to be easier for those people to speak out over an oil drum than for a familly member to rat out a sentient, murderous moving target.