That wasn't even unexpected.
I clearly remember UN weapons inspector Hans Blix saying several times that there weren't any. All the fucking time. Even a few weeks before US attacked Iraq. But noone of US wanted to listen to the man.
And I quote:
That's what I'm getting at. I'm not talking about big subjective WMD's or anything they supposedly went to war over, but caches of sarin gas, etc. that were found on top of what was moved in a hurry and suspected to go to Syria.
Believe me, the idea of going to war over those "WMD's" was stupid, but I'm just saying it would be a shame if some of the agents they did have did actually end up in the hands of Syria like suspected, then it would be an even bigger blunder to it all because it would be something we caused in a way.
Either way, it's scary to think about any of those regimes having access to those weapons as seen here. The bigger countries might have agreed not to use them in war ever, but some of these places haven't and Assad will use them if he's desperate.
Just in the past few decades, sarin gas has seen use:
1988: Over the span of two days in March, the ethnic Kurd city of Halabja in northern Iraq (population 70,000) was bombarded with chemical and cluster bombs, which included sarin, in the Halabja poison gas attack. An estimated 5,000 people died.[22]
1993: The United Nations Chemical Weapons Convention was signed by 162 member countries, banning the production and stockpiling of many chemical weapons, including sarin. It went into effect on 29 April 1997, and called for the complete destruction of all specified stockpiles of chemical weapons by April 2007.[23]
1994: The Japanese religious sect Aum Shinrikyo released an impure form of sarin in Matsumoto, Nagano. (see Matsumoto incident)
1995: Aum Shinrikyo sect released an impure form of sarin in the Tokyo Metro. Thirteen people died. (see Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway)
1998: In the US, Time Magazine and CNN ran false news stories alleging that in 1970 U.S. Air Force A-1E Skyraiders engaged in a covert operation called Operation Tailwind, in which they deliberately dropped sarin-containing weapons on U.S. troops who had defected in Laos. CNN and Time Magazine later retracted the stories and fired the producers responsible.[24]
2004: Iraqi insurgents detonated a 155 mm shell containing binary precursors for sarin near a U.S. convoy in Iraq. The shell was designed to mix the chemicals as it spins during flight. The detonated shell released only a small amount of sarin gas, either because the explosion failed to mix the binary agents properly or because the chemicals inside the shell had degraded with age. Two United States soldiers were treated after displaying the early symptoms of exposure to sarin.[25]
2012: Syria was thought by the United States to have sarin gas mixed to be used as weapons.[26]
2013: The United Nations has investigated reports that the Syrian Government in the Syrian civil war has used sarin,[27][28][29] use of the gas has been confirmed by French officials. According to French officials,[30] the gas has been used by the Syrian Government .[31][32] UN findings indicate that the FSA rebels possess sarin gas
OMFG, APPARENTLY PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO READ THE PARTS THAT SAY I WASN'T FOR THE WAR AND WAS JUST MENTIONING THE THOUGHT OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS LIKE SARIN GAS, ETC. GOING TO SYRIA FROM IRAQ BASED ON SOME DOCUMENTS, INTEL AGENCIES, AND FRIENDS AND COWORKERS.
I'm not trying to justify it so I'm not sure why you're up in arms just for the sake of voicing your opinion on war again. I'm not for it nor does any of this justify it, but the weapons we did find plus what was suspected to be moved is scary to think about and I would hate it if Syrian civilians died due to something that was smuggled due to the war. I don't know how many times I can state my opinion on the war before you guys stop acting like that's the topic at hand when it was about the agents that were found. If anything, those found are getting up there in age and the mix won't be as good ir might be unstable.
I'm talking about the chemical weapons and not about the war. Like I said, I'm worried we might have caused some of the smaller agents to be lost and placed into bad hands. I'm not sure why we can't talk about it without automatically jumping to the conclusion that I'm a stupid war supporter that is moving goalposts. How are we not allowed to talk about what chemicals were found when I even said it wasn't justifiable for war? Assuming something that was clearly stated just so you can pounce on someone over the war (even if he agrees with you) seems pretty odd. If you want your anti-military anger release, aim elsewhere. Telling me and my friends we should be ashamed as if we were the ones that decided to start the war is incredibly naive and is lacking any understanding of how the military works. Hate all you want, but I'm not going to magically become a supporter of the war just to be your punching bag for this passive aggressive bullshit. 
