Less than a week ago we heard reports of Danish troops unearthing (36) mortar shells containing possible Blister agents. Testing by American and Danish scientists have come up inconclusive. Five shells have come up negative and have no traces of any chemical's.

---

America is having trouble in finding any of the so-called WMD's that were relied so heavily upon the current administration as reasoning to invade Iraq. Since the war ended last year, the U.S.-led coalition has found several caches that tested positive for mustard gas but later turned out to contain missile fuel or other chemicals.

Other discoveries early in the U.S.-led occupation turned out to be old caches that already had been tagged by U.N. inspectors and were scheduled for destruction.



[Edited on 14-1-2004 by Nerdling]

I suppose the news in America will neglect to mention this.

Does anyone still believe we'll find wdm? just curious. don't be afraid to raise your hand.

I think its possible Saph, but not anytime in the near future.

Anything they do find will probably be minor, and so obsolete, it'd be lucky to work properly. Chemical weapons also have a nasty habit of leaking when they're old, which would most likely kill anyone who tried to use them. I'd say the chances are almost nill that we'll find anything that could've been a threat to the US.

Originally posted by Saphronia
Does anyone still believe we'll find wdm? just curious. don't be afraid to raise your hand.

Of course! when they've been sufficiently planted.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by Saphronia
Does anyone still believe we'll find wdm? just curious. don't be afraid to raise your hand.

Of course! when they've been sufficiently planted.

I'm very surprised they haven't been "found" already.

I think waaaaay before the war when topics came up about WMD in Iraq--I would say they didn't have any. Once the war started I hoped they had something, and I wished the troops well in their hunt, but as the war has waged on and Saddam has been captured and still no WMD...I don't think there are any, and the fact none were planted tells that the administration truly believed that Iraq might have some.

Either way...UN in, US out. No WMD = no threat...I don't wanna pay to rebuild a country that we went into for no good damn reason...that's like fixing your neighbors roof while your's is leaking.

Originally posted by Saphronia
I think waaaaay before the war when topics came up about WMD in Iraq--I would say they didn't have any. Once the war started I hoped they had something, and I wished the troops well in their hunt, but as the war has waged on and Saddam has been captured and still no WMD...I don't think there are any, and the fact none were planted tells that the administration truly believed that Iraq might have some.

You're right. We (the US) were banking on biologicals WE GAVE THEM 20 years ago, being there now. They weren't. It's almost like Saddam was telling the truth about destroying everything the whole time. Imagine that.

What stinks to me is what if he was being honest, and cooperating? I mean we ASSUMED that since the inspectors couldn't find anything he was playing cat & mouse games. Failure to prove him guilty was spun into proof of guilt. I realize he did awful things 20 years ago... but that's nothing new, and not what you invade for 20 years later. Bush 41 effectively pardoned the guy by withdrawing.

In retrospect, had it been me. No WMD's but 10 years of sanctions and inspections? I'd get pissy about it too. He deserves one hell of a defense effort in that trial (before they kill him anyway).

[Edited on 16-1-2004 by RANT]

Actually, they were banking more on nuclear weapons and/or a nuclear weapons "program". That's all we heard about in the beginning. It was then downgraded to chemical weapons. (Keep in mind, biological weapons are more serious...virus/disease. It's not the same thing as chemical agents...nerve, blister gas, etc. Anthrax is probably the least threatening of the biological agents. We were more worried about all that VX we gave them.) Then it was downgraded to a possible Al Qaeda connection, since neither of the other two panned out. Then it was downgraded to "liberation of Iraq", since that too failed to be proven. What's the next downgrade? The "liberation" thing isn't holding too much water either now, is it?

[Edited on 1-16-2004 by Satyr]