Well one thing,
I am checking all the sources now, and I cant find a single news source that has anything about WMDs and Iraq, and BBC for one, is extremly fast on this.
I did find FOX with this headline: Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq oh, but its from Monday, May 17, 2004, so nothing at all so far.
The Iraq Survey Group has been hunting for weapons of mass destruction following the U.S.-led invasion, but has not discovered any large stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons.
The discovery of these shells also does not answer the question of whether Iraq produced chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War.
The main justification for the U.S.-led war against Iraq last year was a perceived threat from weapons of mass destruction.
Hmm well, I dont want to be the kind of person not to admit I am wrong, but I wana see more confirmation on the seriousness of this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3861197.stm
There were at one time banned chemicals in the warheads, they were just too old to be harmful. Why didn’t Saddam tell the UN inspectors about these? Why didn’t the inspectors find these?
Again, the war in Iraq was waged because Saddam wouldn’t confirm he had disband his WMD programs. Even if he destroyed all of them, or knew they were all too old to be harmful, he needed to relay that to the UN inspectors. The war was not waged because he had this giant arsenal of WMD, it was waged because he use to have a large cache, and never gave proof it was gone. The only safe assumption was that he did have them. Either way, we had to find out, and he wouldn’t tell us we had to use force.
One of Mr Blix’s predecessors as chief UN weapons inspector, Rolf Ekeus, told BBC Radio 4’s World At One programme that the discovery of the warheads was “militarily insignificant”. (Telegraph, 18 Jan., p. 2) Dr Blix himself was equally dismissive, describing the warheads discovery as “no big deal”: “This discovery is interesting and obviously the warheads have to be destroyed. But its not something thats so important because we’re talking about empty warheads.” (Telegraph, 18 Jan., p. 1)
Dr Blix’s summary: “Some 12 empty shells have been forgotten and that, evidently, is not very good. But it is not a very big quantity. Its not a smoking gun.” (Independent, 18 Jan., p.1) None of the 12 warheads had produced “any evidence” of containing traces of lethal chemicals. (Observer, 19 Jan., p. 4)
No, the war was waged because he didn’t disclose what weapons he had, it didn’t matter if they were made in the 90’s, 80’s or 50’s.
It does matter, Iraq was not under sanctions before so they could have had all the bombs they wanted. Once sanctions were placed, those shells were empty so he did not have to declare them. And the fact remains, he has no WMD’s. Thats why the whitehouse, which would have jumped on that like poop on kevlar to bloat out of proportion.