The full story can be found on CNN.com here. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/index.html)
No biological weapons, but a large number of documents were found. Some of the labs were found next to a weapons plant.
Strange that it's found just as speculation starting heating up on whether or not invading Iraq was falsely based on Saddam having WMD, eh?

Originally posted by Eldritch
Strange that it's found just as speculation starting heating up on whether or not invading Iraq was falsely based on Saddam having WMD, eh?

"Starting" to heat up? :p

To the right people, it's been a full blaze for a long time, but maybe Bush is just slow to catch on.

But yeh, I agree ;)

The question of evidence has been moot for a long time now... Since the war started, infact. Even if he (GWB) does dig up some non-fabricated evidence, it'll not justify the war. You don't put a murderer in prison first, and then find the evidence later. At least you didn't last time I checked.

Actually, they do do that, ST. Sort of. They'll gather some evidence together, and if they determine that the suspect is dangerous, they'll put him or her in jail to prevent them from hurting anyone else or fleeing the country while they search for more evidence. Of course, at this point they've already decided to prosecute, but the analogy still works, sort of.

Me bad, Shock. You're right, of course. But they don't electrocute him before they go gather evidence, do they? That's my point.

No, they dont, that's true. But the situation has to determine the reaction. It sounds cold, but if the danger being risked is that of chemical weapons being launched into Kuwait city or Israel or, god-forbid, floated into a New York harbor, then I'll want to be a bit more aggressive as well.

Look at it this way: You're mugged by a guy in a dark alley. On one occasion, he looks like he has a lead pipe in his jacket pocket. On a second occasion, he looks like he has a gun. You have a chance to take him out. Which one will you be more aggressive towards?

Originally posted by ShockV1.89
Look at it this way: You're mugged by a guy in a dark alley. On one occasion, he looks like he has a lead pipe in his jacket pocket. On a second occasion, he looks like he has a gun. You have a chance to take him out. Which one will you be more aggressive towards?

Yeah point taken, but no-one was getting mugged.

True. But WMDs were suspected. I'd say thats worse.

But I see your point as well. US was probably a bit too aggressive... I see our reasoning for being so, but there is a line that should be drawn.

Well, continuing your analogy, I'd say that if you had a chance to call the police (the UN), and the mugger wasn't directly threatening you (you were, say, in you house, and the mugger was pacing the pavement in front of it), then you should call the police, not dig out your shotgun and kill the mugger.

April 15, 2003
Karbala Find: Not WMD
CNN: Tests rule out suspect bio-labs - Apr. 15, 2003

KARBALA, Iraq (CNN) -- The buried labs U.S. troops found last week were not the mobile chemical and biological weapons labs one U.S. Army general suspected, according to the head of an expert team brought in to examine them. The 11 cargo containers were filled with new laboratory equipment apparently intended to make conventional weapons, said team leader Chief Warrant Officer 2 Monte Gonzalez.
Hope this answers your questions!