Amos:

In regards to the SCUD having a chemical warhead, I was told that the sensors indicated a chemical attack. I could certainly be wrong- but I have more faith in the testimony of my friends than I do of a press ( and government) trying to reduce the tensions over the attack.

As I keep repeating, the Iraqi stockpile of empty warheads, which were designed specifically for chemical weapons, and would have been filled just prior to use, were found. I state again:

If the specialized container is not the WMD,
and the actual chemicals are so easy to make that anyone could do it, and the (prohibited) material required to make it was in Saddam's possesion,

WHAT WOULD YOU ACCEPT as a WMD?

"It should be noted that SCUD missiles have notoriously poor accuracy and using one to deliver a chem or bio warhead would practically guarantee civilian deaths, as there is no way to aim it with any precision."

Exactly... I do not see that there was any other intent. And don't say he would not have used them: Hitler used the V2 with even less accuracy.


CarolC:

"That just doesn't make any sense. If attacking Iraq is likely to produce the exact opposite result from the one you say you want, there really can not be any justification for it. "

True- but I have never said that it would produce the exact opposite result: THAT is the claim of those who deny that the WMD even exist.