>Well "we" didn't take their word for it and look where we are now! Same place but with a shattered country and a shattered people on "our" hands!
>And by the way, towards the end of the Inspectors' last go round in Iraq (eg 2002-2003) the Iraqis were saying that they had destroyed them but hadn't concrete evidence other than offering up places they were destroyed for chemical analysis.

Europe was also shattered after WWII. Should we have not fought then?

The Iraqis said they destroyed the anthrax and VX, yet offered no documentation of it. As Hans Blix pointed out, it found it extremely odd that a country that documented things as well as Iraq did, had no record of it. Do you really believe the Iraqis destroyed those weapons? If not, then what do you think happened to them?

>Not even close, at least in my eyes. It is **possible**, I suppose, that they will find people admitting that Saddam ordered deep burial or some such immediately before the war, in which case I would be inclined to accept existence of WMD as justification.
>But if some substances only are found, and not already in weapons and not in the hundreds of thousands of litres quantities, then NOT AT ALL.

As I pointed out earlier, we, including the U.N., know that the tons of anthrax and VX existed. Of this, there is no doubt. You seem to be saying that only if the anthrax and VX were actually in weapons would it be a reason to go to war. That to me is about as reasonable as a man walking into a bank with an unloaded gun in one hand and bullets in his pocket.