In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
"M.Hamer" wrote:
:But they weren't used. Why? Because they didn't exist!

By this reasoning, chemical weapons didn't exist in any of the
countries participating in WWII. Clearly specious reasoning.

No, because we've still got facilities at Porton we built to evaluate
and analyse captured German chemical weapons.

(What have we captured in Iraq?)


The complication is that Iraq seems to have lied thoroughly to
exaggerate its holdings; perhaps to boost local standing in the hope
that this was just another bout of US sabre-rattling (perhaps to deter
it from being more than that). Caveat - speculation is just that.

The "missing weapons" are not small or compact items - the missing
shells would need something like 250 forty-foot trailers to haul - and
they (and the facilities to make them, and the precursors for them)
don't take kindly to being buried or abandoned.

I'm not finding it convincing that all this material existed, was
carefully hidden, and remains concealed. Of course, it may all have
existed and been sold to terrorists in the chaotic aftermath of the
invasion - which I don't consider a net gain.


Trouble is, Iraqi lies are tough to call. I'd have gone for more
inspection to produce a usable UN consensus backed by military action in
the autumn, rather than a snap war in the spring (bear in mind that 'go
in without the French' is not precluded by a little patience, and aided
by isolating diplomacy); but nobody asked me.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk