WMDs found
Yup:
COPENHAGEN (Reuters) – Danish troops have found dozens of mortar rounds buried in Iraq which initial tests show could contain blister gas, the Danish army says.
The tests were taken after Danish troops found 36 120mm mortar rounds on Friday in southern Iraq. The Danish army said they had been buried for at least 10 years.
“All the instruments showed indications of the same type of chemical compound, namely blister gas,” the Danish Army Operational Command said on its Web site on Saturday, cautioning that further tests were needed.
Blister gases, such as mustard gas, are used in chemical weapons.
Blister gas, an illegal weapon which former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein said he had destroyed, was extensively used against the Iranians during the 1980 to 1988 war.
Although it can kill if it enters the lungs, its use is primarily to debilitate infantry by causing the skin to break out in excruciatingly painful blisters.
The United States launched its war to oust Saddam on March 20 saying the Iraqi leader violated U.N. resolutions by developing weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons.
Teams of international weapons inspectors however have so far been unable to locate those weapons.
One more lefty talking point goes poop.
Update: Tests by Danish and American experts indicate there is no chemical warfare agent in mortar shells unearthed last week in southern Iraq (news – web sites), but more testing is needed to confirm the findings, the Danish military reported Wednesday.
January 11th, 2004 at 1:47 am
Please tell me you are joking. Check out the picture.
I bet with a little bondo and a good sander those shells would have been as good as new, even after sitting buried under the sand for 10 years because the Iraqi government themselves forgot where they were! (which is precisely what they told inspectors). Why, with that amount of mustard gas, they could have easily wiped out.. uh.. a city block.. if they could get it there, somehow.
I am glad that we sacrificed billions of dollars and 500 soldiers’ lives to protect us from this grave, imminent threat.
[/sarcasm]
January 11th, 2004 at 4:24 am
check this out, it’s funny.
January 11th, 2004 at 9:09 am
Chris, the concern isn’t about the shells but the contents thereof.
January 11th, 2004 at 9:54 am
The White House is going to have an awful tough time selling blister gas packed in a couple dozen mortar rounds as WMD’s. You’d need to have huge amounts of the stuff packed into hundreds of long range missles to even threaten cities in Kuwait or Isreal, much less as far away as New York or London.
January 11th, 2004 at 10:50 am
I think atrios put it best:
January 11th, 2004 at 12:06 pm
I find the sight of those rotting shells terrifying.
Seriously, is that the type of thing that warrants a war?
January 11th, 2004 at 12:15 pm
Wow, you guys must read instapundit:
Heh! Indeed!
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/013467.php
They are weapons and the contents are capable of mass destruction. Nevermind the other 18 or so reasons for the war just keep moving the goal post.
January 11th, 2004 at 3:10 pm
S.U., I gotta call B.S. on this one. Those weren’t weapons being secretly kept by the Iraqis. They were buried and forgotten a decade ago, probably pre-dating Destert Storm.
There’s no moving goal-post here. Different people who opposed the war did so on different standards, GWB sold the war on the grounds of disarming Iraq, and 36 mortar rounds of blister gas buried for 10 years and lost is not what the buyers had in mind.
January 11th, 2004 at 4:11 pm
They were weapons. 10-15 years ago, maybe. And mustard gas in that quantity is not capable of mass destruction.
January 11th, 2004 at 4:53 pm
Moving the goal posts? Just what standard did Bush use to justify the war? That Saddam was an “evildoer”?
January 11th, 2004 at 10:23 pm
Sorry, Uncle, but this time I agree with the lefties – sort of. I don’t really give a shit about the WMD’s as I don’t really see their physical existence as a prerequisite for invasion, but 36 corroding shells filled with “a blister agent” ain’t WMD’s no matter how you want to portray it.
Now, if they find a couple of pounds of anthrax spores or some nerve gas, then they’d have something to shut up the yammering left.
Look, we know he HAD them – even Clinton believed it, but these shells aren’t much evidence of anything.
January 11th, 2004 at 10:44 pm
Sorry guys, it’s a weapons cache he should’t have had. Sure, it’s a technical, nitpicky point but that’s all that is needed to say they were right.
And how about those unilateral danish troops? It seems two talking points went poop.
January 12th, 2004 at 12:33 am
SU..the war has cost 500 US casualties, over 10,000 wounded and $150 billion and counting on all three numbers. These shells in their current condition probably couldn’t have caused that much damage even in a worst-case scenario.
January 12th, 2004 at 7:47 am
I think Kevin hit the nail on the head.
January 12th, 2004 at 9:50 am
Never mind the fact Saddam had thousands killed, plotted against the US, disregarded UN sanctions et al. Yeah your right it just wasnt worth it. The world was a much safer place with Saddam in power.
January 12th, 2004 at 3:37 pm
It remains to be seen whether the world is safer without Saddam in power, but Saddam’s power was essentially relevant only in Iraq. He hadn’t so much as threatened anyone outside his borders in over a decade.