What? You say UN weapons inspectors found chemical warheads in Iraq? But Saddam promised they had no weapons of mass destruction. And you always believe dictators when they plead innocence, right? I'm sure this will somehow turn into a Bush conspiracy - the US covertly planted these warheads to justify their "blood for oil" pursuit in the middle east.
I find that RNS must make one retraction, however. Apparently the UN weapons inspectors CAN find their own asses with 2 hands, a flashlight, and a roadmap.
Now even the Blixinator is going to have trouble 'splainin this away. But I'm sure Kofi Annan will have no trouble making the US the bad guy - something like the US is rushing to war because we just didn't give Saddam enough time to hide his aresenal!
Posted by Neal (Nukevet) at January 16, 2003 12:44 PM | TrackBackarmed chemical warheads? Really?? Battle-ready and all that?
The link doesn't go to the article, so I have to assume Yes.
Link seemed to work fine for me, so not sure wgat your issue is. The warheads were empty at the time they were discovered - does that REALLY matter? They have warheads designed to deliver chemical payloads. They were hidden and not part of the declaration they made to the UN. This appears to be a material breach of the resolution, unless you are arguing that a chemical warhead only counts as a chemical warhead when it is being pointed at someone?
The chemical compounds placed in these warheads is the simple part of the equation. Designing and building (or otherwise acquiring) a warhead capable of effective dispersal of the biologic or chemical agent is tougher. Are you suggesting that they aren't chemical warheads because they aren't loaded and primed right now? By that logic, shouldn't Saddam just be able to unload all of his conventional weapons and declare himself to be completely disarmed and a threat to no one?
Posted by: Neal on January 17, 2003 10:37 AM