The question of whether Iraq possessed WMD has always seemed to me to be a red herring.
There's nothing particularly difficult about manufacturing or concealing biological or chemical weapons (even with my rusty knowledge of chemistry I'm sure I could rustle up something in a week or two that would do away with a large number of people).
The real issue is not whether Iraq possessed WMD, but whether it was prepared to use them.
Both Tony Blair and George W Bush obtained public support for the invasion of Iraq by telling people that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD and was preparing to use them against British and American interests. Both leaders did their level best to scare the wits out of people by pointing out how just a cupful of certain toxins could kill millions of people. "And mark my words," Tony Blair assured the British public, "Saddam Hussein would not hesitate for an instant to use these weapons if the opportunity arose for him to do so."
Well, the opportunity did arise, when the bulk of the invading forces landed in Kuwait. It would only have taken a single missile armed with just a spoonful of any one of the deadly toxins that Iraq was claimed to possess (this was the alleged reason for the invasion, after all), to wipe them all out in a single strike.
So why didn't the Iraqis fire this deadly missile and prevent the invasion of their country?
We know that they had the capability to send missiles to Kuwait, because on 29 March they did fire a missile which hit Kuwait City, causing damage to a shopping centre. There were no fatalities.
In the early days of the war the Iraqis again had ample opportunity to use the WMD they are allegeed to possess. Again, why didn't they?
There would seem to be little point in a country developing and stockpiling WMD if it is never, under any circumstances, going to use these weapons. Even when Iraq's cities were being pulverised by "coalition" bombs and missiles, when thousands of Iraqis were being killed and maimed, and when the Iraqi leadership was itself coming under threat, still no WMD were unleashed against the invading forces.
Throughout the entire "war", the only WMD in evidence were those used by British and American forces - ie, the inherently indiscriminate cluster bombs which they dropped on densely populated areas, blowing up children in their beds.
So whether WMD are ever found in Iraq is to a large extent irrelevant. What we know for a fact is that the Iraqis were either unable or unwilling to use these weapons, even when the very survival of the Iraqi leadership was at stake. This in itself is proof that the invasion was unjustified.
If the possession of WMD were really the grounds for invading Iraq, there would be far more compelling grounds for attacking Israel, which, it is known for a fact, does possess illegal stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. And my strong hunch is that Israel would not hesitate to use these weapons if it felt itself to be under threat.
Created By: Zak Martin