# Iraqi WMD mystery solved?



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 13, 2006)

According to former Iraqi Vice Air Marshall, George Sada, Saddam Hussein moved his WMD stockpiles to Syria in 2002.



> Sada contends that Saddam took advantage of a June 4, 2002, irrigation dam collapse in Zeyzoun, Syria, to ship the weapons under cover of an aid project to the flooded region.
> 
> "[Saddam] said 'Okay, Iraq is going to do an air bridge to help Syria," Sada recounted. Two commercial jets, a 747 and 727, were converted to cargo jets, in order to carry raw materials and equipment related to WMD projects, Sada said. The passenger seats, galleys, toilets and storage compartments were removed and new flooring was installed, he claimed. Hundreds of tons of chemicals were reportedly included in the cargo shipments.


 

Being one of Saddam Hussein's former generals, George Sada might have an inside track.  He certainly had access and was in the right place.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Feb 14, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> According to former Iraqi Vice Air Marshall, George Sada, Saddam Hussein moved his WMD stockpiles to Syria in 2002.
> 
> 
> 
> Being one of Saddam Hussein's former generals, George Sada might have an inside track. He certainly had access and was in the right place.


 
Listen, if Hussein didn't USE them even to save his regime and ultimately his life, than what sort of threat were they? Don't give me that he'd give them to terrorists - that was suicide and Bin Laden, et. al. hated him almost as much as they hate the U.S. I'm sorry, but, IMO, you are grasping at straws. Whether you think we should be in Iraq or not, the evidence that the Admin. grossly exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq is indisputable for those willing to see it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 14, 2006)

I thought we "knew" they had them, knew where they were, and it was the main reason for switching gears from the pursuit of Osama to a ground war in Iraq. I mean, I remember Dubya commenting on this, General Colon telling the UN about them, detailed satellite photos of blurry gray spots and cigar shapes that were "obviously" tankers, missiles, etc. So, the Iraqi's managed to fool both the Brits and the US, and were telling the truth back at the wars start?

Wow. Guess Georgie made a mistake. Think it's too late to give it all back and say "sorry"?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 14, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Listen, if Hussein didn't USE them even to save his regime and ultimately his life, than what sort of threat were they? Don't give me that he'd give them to terrorists - that was suicide and Bin Laden, et. al. hated him almost as much as they hate the U.S. I'm sorry, but, IMO, you are grasping at straws. Whether you think we should be in Iraq or not, the evidence that the Admin. grossly exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq is indisputable for those willing to see it.


 So you're assertion is that it, now, doesn't matter if they DID have them?  Seems the standard keeps changing.  

I'll tell you what it mattered.  Part of the conditions set for the cease fire of the first Gulf war was those having to do with destroy WMD.  If he still had them stockpiled, and was still researching nuclear weapons technology, then he was STILL at war with the US, as he was violating the conditions of the first cease fire.  If we have no intention of holding someone like Saddam to the standards of their agreement, then we should resign ourselves to the dustbin of history.

Now, there is no 'grasping at straws' if Saddam DID have WMD, as that was the point (or was alleged to have been the point).  We have information about what happened to the WMD.  If Saddam did maintain WMD, your 'exaggeration of threat' is entirely irrelavent.  The threat was EXACTLY what it was said to be....a rogue dictator who maintained his WMD inventory, in preparation of his release from sanctions.

That the enemies of the Administration parroted "Where's the WMD, where's the WMD" I thought it might be interesting to discuss what some of Saddam's hi-ranking Generals have said about where the WMD is.  Of course, if we do locate the WMD, those same people will simply say "Doesn't matter, we still went to war for the wrong reasons" because they really don't care what the evidence is.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 14, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I thought we "knew" they had them, knew where they were, and it was the main reason for switching gears from the pursuit of Osama to a ground war in Iraq. I mean, I remember Dubya commenting on this, General Colon telling the UN about them, detailed satellite photos of blurry gray spots and cigar shapes that were "obviously" tankers, missiles, etc. So, the Iraqi's managed to fool both the Brits and the US, and were telling the truth back at the wars start?
> 
> Wow. Guess Georgie made a mistake. Think it's too late to give it all back and say "sorry"?


 First of all nobody 'switched gears' from a 'pursuit of bin Laden'.  That's a myth perpetrated for political reasons.  We have been, are continuing to pursue bin Laden.  

Second, the evidence suggests that Saddam continued to maintain WMD until the 11th hour, and then HID them.  Hardly 'He didn't have them'.  Hiding your toys, is not the same as not having them in the first place.

The truth is that those who dislike the administration, could care less about the WMD.  If we found it, they would complain, if we didn't find it, they had even more to complain about.  If we can conclusively show what happened to it, and that it was hidden, it's irrelavent to those people.  However, there are those who haven't already made up their political views years ago, who might find it interesting to know that there is growing evidence to suggest that Saddam's WMD went exactly where many already said it went.....Syria.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Feb 14, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So you're assertion is that it, now, doesn't matter if they DID have them? Seems the standard keeps changing.
> 
> I'll tell you what it mattered. Part of the conditions set for the cease fire of the first Gulf war was those having to do with destroy WMD. If he still had them stockpiled, and was still researching nuclear weapons technology, then he was STILL at war with the US, as he was violating the conditions of the first cease fire. If we have no intention of holding someone like Saddam to the standards of their agreement, then we should resign ourselves to the dustbin of history.


 
Not at all. We knew that the majority of Saddam's WMD had been verifiably destroyed (98%) and the other two percent could be attributed to bad record keeping - ours. Listen, these folks cherry picked their intelligence in order to get a war. Either Iraq was a threat or they were not. History has shown that they WERE NOT.

I truly do not understand apologists for this Administration and its propoganda. The information is out there for those without a political ax to grind. These SOB's lied their behinds off. They were not mistaken, as Fox and assorted right wing media would have you believe - they lied.

He "hid" them in Syria? What threat were they then? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer". Folks LEFT and RIGHT need to read it. Party loyalty is DESTROYING our great Republic. Fiscal irresponsiblity is JUST FINE if a Republican does it. Pissing on the Constitution is just fine if it's done in the name of freedom.

Folks, get a freakin' backbone! Sure we were attacked on 9/11, but the Founding Fathers would roll over in their grave to see that we we were so willing to trade Freedom for Security and to wage Agressive War.

I have never been so disappointed in my countrymen as I am now. We should be immune, or near to it, from propaganda and fear mongering - but apparently not so. Words cannot describe the anger and contempt I have for these lying SOB's who manufacture intelligence to scare the population.

If there were any possible way for me to believe otherwise, I would withhold judgement. There just is no way. SGTMAC, you strike me as a very intelligent, if party line individual. If you would research the build up to war from a non-partisan perspective, I believe that you would have to come to the inevitable conclusion that these people exaggerated and even outright fabricated intelligence in order to get the American people to back a war they had ALREADY decided upon. The information is out there.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 14, 2006)

Whew, that's a relief. 

Now we can look to the Adminstration to switch back to destroying those Weapons of Mass Destruction when 'Spreading Democracy' in the Middle East turns out to be the disaster it is on track to be.

Hopefully, the American Public will not notice that they have spent more than a Billion Dollars a week to put someone name 'Grand Ayatollah' in charge of Iraq. 

History has shown that people named 'Grand Ayatollah' tend to be not very responsive in the democracy department.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 14, 2006)

Sarge, I have to respectfully disagree.  Seems Gov. Bush himself made some public comments about neither knowing nor caring where Osama was.  Then, there is a more simple formula to look at here. Compare the resources used to topple Sadamn, the shoddy telegenic, the expenditure in manpower to that currently in play in Afghanistan, the last known location of OBL. The focus shifted from hunting down Osama to forcing Sadamn to yield to finding and destroying WMD to toppling an evil dictator to nation building. All the time while contractors and corporate interests get fat on the trough.

In the mean time, Osama's still out there, still alive, and still giving orders. The general American Public has forgotten the guys in Afghanistan, and some even think it was Sadamn, not Osama who attacked on 9/11.

I'm just glad that now, what is it, 2 years or 3 years later we might finally have an idea where those WMD went, after being so certain where they were when this whole ugly forever war was started by the war hawks.

So, will we be tackling Syria next for WMD, or Iran for nuclear missiles? Hmm....decisions decisions. Which has the most resources and is most in need of a McDonalds?


----------



## Ray (Feb 14, 2006)

The assertion that the WMDs were moved to Syria is not new.  It's also not widely circulated in the media I read/watch.  I've gathered it's probably not true (although it could be).

There's only one way to be sure.  But I think we should put off an invasion of Syria until after the Iraq military action and upcoming Iran invasion.


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 14, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Not at all. We knew that the majority of Saddam's WMD had been verifiably destroyed (98%) and the other two percent could be attributed to bad record keeping - ours. Listen, these folks cherry picked their intelligence in order to get a war. Either Iraq was a threat or they were not. History has shown that they WERE NOT.



Let's not forget Iraq was a threat!  Albeit, not to us.  Saddam happened to be a threat to one single nearby neighbor.   As a matter of fact according to the terms of the surrender, his missiles could not have a range of no more than 98km.  This would in fact protect this one particular neighbor but not ALL of Iraq's neighbors.  To me it is quite clear what this war is over, it isn't so much about protecting the USA, but our "friends" in the middle east.  In my opinion, Iran is next, for the very same reason.


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 14, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> In the mean time, Osama's still out there, still alive, and still giving orders. The general American Public has forgotten the guys in Afghanistan, and some even think it was Sadamn, not Osama who attacked on 9/11.


IMHO, They are not interested in finding him, or at least capturing or killing him.  That is their fear card.  As long as they can keep him caged and Afghanistan is THE poppy exporter, they are ok with that.

It is funny how the government and media have convinced the majority of people that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack.  I couldn't tell you how many people I have spoken to who HONESTLY BELIEVE Saddam masterminded the attack and that is why we are in Iraq.  :rofl:


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 14, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> It is funny how the government and media have convinced the majority of people that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack. I couldn't tell you how many people I have spoken to who HONESTLY BELIEVE Saddam masterminded the attack and that is why we are in Iraq.


 
It's not funny at all. 

One needs only look at the President's speeches. When discussing the 'Plan for Victory in Iraq', President Bush references 911 early and often. Look at the State of the Union address. The first half of which dealt with the foreign policy fiasco in Iraq. How often did the President reference 911?

One of the bloggers at Huffington Post set up a clever video called "911 Beat the Clock", guessing how quickly the President would link 911 to, well, everything. 

If you say something often enough, even the people who don't pay attention will eventually hear it.


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 14, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It's not funny at all.


Well, I didn't mean it quite like that.  It is a serious issue.  Those same people think goverment (especially ours) is infallible and all their motives are altruistic.  This mindset is common with people inside the goverment, military, etc.  I guess it needs to be otherwise there is a conflict of ideals.

The citizens who believe this, NEVER questions the actions of the government or their political parties, their mindset is the government knows best.   They are "sleeping".  One must question everything.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 14, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Not at all. We knew that the majority of Saddam's WMD had been verifiably destroyed (98%) and the other two percent could be attributed to bad record keeping - ours. Listen, these folks cherry picked their intelligence in order to get a war. Either Iraq was a threat or they were not. History has shown that they WERE NOT.


 HAHAHAHA. Seems you didn't read my post.  This wasn't the administration saying that Saddam hid his arsenal, it was one of SADDAM's GENERALS.....who knows more about the issue than anyone on this board.  So what say you about that, other than....'I don't care, because my mind is made up' or 'don't confuse me with the facts, when my theories are so much more palatable.'  I guess we grab on to truths, that we refuse to let go of, even when further evidence is presented to the contrary.

What, in essence, you are saying is that it doesn't matter to you whether Saddam maintained large stockpiles of WMD.  That, the standard of proof for the administration is 'just a little more than anything we could possibly find'.  If we found one nuclear device, the standard would be two.  1,000 canisters of nerve gas, the standard would be 2,000.

At least be honest that you don't care if he had WMD, there is no standard that would be enough.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 14, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Whew, that's a relief.
> 
> Now we can look to the Adminstration to switch back to destroying those Weapons of Mass Destruction when 'Spreading Democracy' in the Middle East turns out to be the disaster it is on track to be.
> 
> ...


 Funny, none of this comes from the 'administration'.....though, I guess anyone who disagrees with you is 'the administration' right?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 14, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Sarge, I have to respectfully disagree. Seems Gov. Bush himself made some public comments about neither knowing nor caring where Osama was.


 Misquoting is not the same thing at all.  What Bush said, because I heard him say it, was that finding bin Laden was irrelavent to dismantling al-Qaeda.  You can twist that all you like, but you can't really alter what he was saying.  Context is everything (or distorting context, on the part of some).



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Then, there is a more simple formula to look at here. Compare the resources used to topple Sadamn, the shoddy telegenic, the expenditure in manpower to that currently in play in Afghanistan, the last known location of OBL. The focus shifted from hunting down Osama to forcing Sadamn to yield to finding and destroying WMD to toppling an evil dictator to nation building. All the time while contractors and corporate interests get fat on the trough.


 Apples and oranges.  Afghanistan is not Iraq, and the resources able to be brought to bear in a mountainous region like Afghanistan are limited.  Large mechanized divisions are useless in Afghanistan.  We've never stopped looking for bin Laden and his Captains.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> In the mean time, Osama's still out there, still alive, and still giving orders. The general American Public has forgotten the guys in Afghanistan, and some even think it was Sadamn, not Osama who attacked on 9/11.


 You may have forgotten, but that's an entirely different issue.  As for bin Laden, again, nobody has 'forgotten' about him.  You can not show me one single bit of evidence to show that we've done anything less than everything possible to find bin Laden, short of physically rooting up Pakistan and Iran.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I'm just glad that now, what is it, 2 years or 3 years later we might finally have an idea where those WMD went, after being so certain where they were when this whole ugly forever war was started by the war hawks.


 Again, you don't care.  Because those who dislike the administration never cared about the WMD, it was a convenient issue to criticize, but even had it been found, the decision would have been criticized regardless.  Of course, contrary to what many of you like to proclaim, this information doesn't come from 'the administration' it comes from one of Saddam's former Generals.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> So, will we be tackling Syria next for WMD, or Iran for nuclear missiles? Hmm....decisions decisions. Which has the most resources and is most in need of a McDonalds?


 Gee, Bob, sorry if I brought up a little discussion of the truth.  If it doesn't matter where large amounts of WMD were sent, if it's irrelavent to you, then we won't discuss it further.  It did seem kind of important, but if it's all just trivia to you, I won't mention another word.  I'd hate to inconvenience people with such irrelavencies as the hiding of large amounts of WMD.  Not when we have bigger agenda's, like Cheney shooting his hunting companion.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 14, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> He "hid" them in Syria? What threat were they then? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?


 
This is the only thing you said I will disagree with JR.  ASSUMING this isnt fantasy, and he did hide them in Syria, it doesnt mean they werent a threat.  Just not a threat AT THAT MOMENT.

If the Gvmt comes and takes my guns, but I hide some at my friends house, those guns may not be a threat to you when you walk into my house, but they are when I go pick em up and walk into someone elses.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 14, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> This is the only thing you said I will disagree with JR. ASSUMING he did hide them in Syria, it doesnt mean they werent a threat. Just not a threat AT THAT MOMENT.
> 
> If the Gvmt comes and takes my guns, but I hide some at my friends house, those guns may not be a threat to you when you walk into my house, but they are when I go pick em up and walk into someone elses.


 Your analogy is completely appropriate.  I'm stunned by the 'so-what' attitude of otherwise reasonable people.  As if this is just inconvient trivia.

According to the General, he figured the Americans would come, not find the WMD, and he could regain power....then recover the WMD from Syria.  He never had any intention of being captured or losing power.  

Now, if someone's argument is 'even with WMD, who cares' then so be it.  But if their alleged argument is 'Where's the WMD?' then we may have some idea.  Is that what happened?  That remains to be seen, but it's hardly irrelavent trivia.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 14, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> According to former Iraqi Vice Air Marshall, George Sada, Saddam Hussein moved his WMD stockpiles to Syria in 2002.
> 
> 
> 
> Being one of Saddam Hussein's former generals, George Sada might have an inside track. He certainly had access and was in the right place.


I'm curious, are we suggesting that George Sada is credible?  Based upon what?  



> Again, you don't care. Because those who dislike the administration never cared about the WMD, it was a convenient issue to criticize, but even had it been found, the decision would have been criticized regardless.


Unfounded supposition.  If, if, if, but, moot point.  Beyond which, what is the relevance of this statement to the argument?



> I guess we grab on to truths, that we refuse to let go of, even when further evidence is presented to the contrary.


Apparently.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 14, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Funny, none of this comes from the 'administration'.....though, I guess anyone who disagrees with you is 'the administration' right?


 
Slow down, and read my post. I did not say, or intuit, or imply that your claims came from the Administration. 

I do note that you don't source the material. You give a generals' name. Kinda like the name of the general on the documents requesting yellowcake from niger. 

The United States was tossing "Bricks" of 100 dollar bills at every Saddam General they could find to locate Weapons of Mass Destruction. Literally *millions of dollars in bribes* were offered and paid out to find the weapons. We came up with a whole bunch of nothing. 

David Kay. - Charles Duelfer. Do those names mean anything to you? These guys could have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to secure one tanker truck of weaponized anthrax. Seems to me your General was a sucker for not getting the money. 

And you flatter me to acknowlege that my opinion is the same as Mr. Kay and Mr. Duelfer. But, what would they know, right?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 14, 2006)

Sarge,
 Contrary to your post, I do in fact care. I care because a lot of good men and women are dead and alot more are crippled and maimed, over a war, who's reasons for being have changed several times over the last few years. 

You posted a reference to an Iraqi general's comments...but General Colon himself took the best of our so called "Intelegence", including photographs to the UN and declared that we knew where they were.

You seem to have great faith in Govenor Bush. 
Heres a quote: "Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction. - George W. Bush 

Considering that the US has and has developed nuclear weapons, chemical weapons AND biological weapons (having some of the worlds largest stores of all 3), what did he just say about the US?

Now, since the topic here is Sadamm's aleged WMD, now supposedly last seen in Syria, and that one of the reasons for the whole Iraq War was to remove these deadly toys from the hands of a madman I have to ask:

Will we now attack Syria in order to look for them?
- Syria is run by an equally crazy bunch
- Has known terrorist ties
- Continues to allow hostiles to cross into Iraq via it's borders
- most importatly, doesn't like Israel and is much closer than Iraq to them.

Or, will we turn and confront Iran who
- Is actively pursuing Nuclear Weapons and their delivery systems
- Has known terrorist ties
- Is run by religious fanatics
- Continues to allow hostiles to cross into Iraq via it's borders.

Since we (or rather Gov. Bush) has declared "_Any government that supports, protects or harbours terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes._" and "_Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups or seeks to possess weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilised world and will be confronted._" and both Syria and Iraq fit those definitions, what is the next step?


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Feb 14, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> HAHAHAHA. Seems you didn't read my post. This wasn't the administration saying that Saddam hid his arsenal, it was one of SADDAM's GENERALS.....who knows more about the issue than anyone on this board. So what say you about that, other than....'I don't care, because my mind is made up' or 'don't confuse me with the facts, when my theories are so much more palatable.' I guess we grab on to truths, that we refuse to let go of, even when further evidence is presented to the contrary.
> 
> What, in essence, you are saying is that it doesn't matter to you whether Saddam maintained large stockpiles of WMD. That, the standard of proof for the administration is 'just a little more than anything we could possibly find'. If we found one nuclear device, the standard would be two. 1,000 canisters of nerve gas, the standard would be 2,000.


 
Remember "Saddam's Bombmaker"? You know the guy that was so full of B.S., but was quoted ad nauseum by Right Wing talk radio as PROOF that Saddam was close to obtaining nuclear weapons? I wouldn't be surprised if this General is equally full of it. We KNOW that most, if not all, of the WMD stocks were destroyed during the  inspection period and afterwords Iraq was the MOST WATCHED NATION IN WORLD HISTORY. _Large Stocks of WMD?  _Not even the Admin. seriously believed that. What they were hoping for, IMO, was to find a little bit of the 2% that Iraq could not document as destroyed, trot them out, even if they had decomposed to worthless sludge, and claim that they had rescued the world from Saddam.

Man, do some reading outside of Right Wing Administration Apologist sources. The information IS OUT THERE. These people LIED! I'm sorry, I would have liked to believe them. Unfortunately that simply is not possible for me to do and retain intellectual integrity.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 15, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Sarge,
> Contrary to your post, I do in fact care. I care because a lot of good men and women are dead and alot more are crippled and maimed, over a war, who's reasons for being have changed several times over the last few years.
> 
> You posted a reference to an Iraqi general's comments...but General Colon himself took the best of our so called "Intelegence", including photographs to the UN and declared that we knew where they were.


 In essence, what you are saying is this.....you don't care if Saddam managed to hide them or not.  That they weren't where we said is all that matters (in fact, even if they had been there, it still wouldn't have mattered).



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> You seem to have great faith in Govenor Bush.
> Heres a quote: "Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction. - George W. Bush
> 
> Considering that the US has and has developed nuclear weapons, chemical weapons AND biological weapons (having some of the worlds largest stores of all 3), what did he just say about the US?


 Soundbites are exactly that....soundbites.  An understanding of the history of nuclear weapons technology in the US clearly illustrates that we did not build those devices in a void, but as a direct result of pressures from fascist and totalitarian regimes.  Devoid of those, there would BE no WMD.  It is clear what Bush meant, that Free nations do not develop WMD against each other, and that is a true statement.  You know the history, I don't have to tell you this.  Dictatorships need WMD to maintain power.  Democracies developed them to defend against dictators.  There'd be no need to have them, if there weren't any dictators to threaten democracies.  



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Now, since the topic here is Sadamm's aleged WMD, now supposedly last seen in Syria, and that one of the reasons for the whole Iraq War was to remove these deadly toys from the hands of a madman I have to ask:
> 
> Will we now attack Syria in order to look for them?
> - Syria is run by an equally crazy bunch
> ...


 Those are good questions, despite your sarcasm in asking them.  What do you think?  Should we simply ignore Syria and Iran?  



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Since we (or rather Gov. Bush) has declared "_Any government that supports, protects or harbours terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes._" and "_Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups or seeks to possess weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilised world and will be confronted._" and both Syria and Iraq fit those definitions, what is the next step?


 Now, Bob, I look at this as a VERY good question.  Both Syria and Iran need to be dealt with.  In what order?  I think Iran is the bigger threat, as Syria is more stable and more inclined to remain in the shadows, playing both sides.  The lunatics who run Iran, however, actually believe in a Martyrs paradies.  That mindset is EXCEEDINGLY dangerous, especially when armed with nuclear weapons.  They have dreams of an armageddon type confrontation with the rest of the world.


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 15, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> HAHAHAHA. Seems you didn't read my post.  This wasn't the administration saying that Saddam hid his arsenal, it was one of SADDAM's GENERALS.....who knows more about the issue than anyone on this board.


Yes, I saw that.  But again, I am suspicious of his claims (under the circumstances), they may be true, they may not be.  Coercion is not an unheard of angle.  But then again he could be absolutely correct.  I will sit this one out and see where it goes before blindly believing him or what the media said he said.


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 15, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> At least be honest that you don't care if he had WMD, there is no standard that would be enough.



I didn't care that he had WMD.  He was no threat to the United States.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 15, 2006)

Sarge,
1- I don't care where he hid them, if he hid them, or if he even ever really had them. He posed no threat to the US that _proper _enforcement of existing (pre 9/11) boarder security couldn't handle. There were more dangerous issues at the time (N. Korea and nukes) than Iraq.

2- No I don't know that it was "that clear". A reading of many of his statements indicate that often times, not even he knows what he is saying. It's not right that I should try to "translate" Bushspeak to decide what he really meant while munching on his toes. Maybe he should speak clearer?

3- My sarcasm is there, true. However, I believe we should focus our attention on a nation with known stockpiles of biological, chemical, and nuclear materials. One that we really do know exactly where they are. Where a number of the government officials are possibly corrupt, or compromised. Where poverty, unemployment, education, pollution are major issues but the government is waging illegal actions against both foreign nations and it's own citizens. Where it's top leaders are ignoring obvious threats while pursuing personal agendas. I think we need to do some "nation building".

4- Syria and Iran are both threats. So is N. Korea. So is Saudi Arabia. So are a dozen other nations. Are we to wage war on them all?  Do we have enough poor teens to throw into the meat grinder? Can our economy withstand the loss of manpower, brainpower and money? Should we even bother? Where are the other 200+ nations in all this? Why should we volunteer for this "duty" and continue the policy change this regime has done to American policy? The policy of switching from defense to open warfare and preemptive invasions?


----------



## oldnewbie (Feb 15, 2006)

There is some intersting information at

www.intelligencesummitt.org/news/johnloftus/jl010606.php
and
www.nysun.com/article/27110

concerning the WMD issue. We may find out more next week as the summit is happening Fen 17 - 20th


----------



## Ray (Feb 15, 2006)

In addition to the idea that they were sent to Syria, there was another proposal bantied around: {Iraqi} people developing these weapons were merely pocketing the money and producing nothing but reports saying that wmd's were being made.  Not that I believe that one any more than this one.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 15, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Will we now attack Syria in order to look for them?
> - Syria is run by an equally crazy bunch
> - Has known terrorist ties
> - Continues to allow hostiles to cross into Iraq via it's borders
> - most importatly, doesn't like Israel and is much closer than Iraq to them.


 
The following terrorist organizations are receiving or have received support from, or were based in Syria.

Palestinian Popular Struggle Front
Abu Nidal Group
Armenian Secret Army for Liberation of Armenia Democratic Front for liberation of Palestine 
Hezbollah 
Kurdistan Workers Party 
Palestine Islamic Jihad 

I am neither supporting nor speaking against any attack, war or military action

But if there are WMA in Syria, anyone of these groups would be happy to get their hands on them. Regardless of what people want to believe the world isn't a safe place.
 
And Israel has no real allies in the Middle East, but that is a different issue and there is a whole lot of history involved there.


----------



## tradrockrat (Feb 15, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Not at all. We knew that the majority of Saddam's WMD had been verifiably destroyed (98%) and the other two percent could be attributed to bad record keeping - ours. Listen, these folks cherry picked their intelligence in order to get a war. Either Iraq was a threat or they were not. History has shown that they WERE NOT.


 
The history of Lala Land maybe, but here in the real world History showed Hussien was a serious threat to his enemies.  For the record, we are his enemy.  the history you refer to is the dubious assumption that Hussien had no WMDs.  Yet we know that previously he did and had no qualms about using them.  That's the part people like to overlook - HE HAD ALREADY USED THEM BEFORE!



> I truly do not understand apologists for this Administration and its propoganda. The information is out there for those without a political ax to grind. These SOB's lied their behinds off. They were not mistaken, as Fox and assorted right wing media would have you believe - they lied.
> 
> He "hid" them in Syria? What threat were they then? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?


 
A very serious threat unless you know something about Syria that I and the rest of the world don't.  Do you think Hussien was going to leave them there?  And if so, do you think Syria would let them sit there forever with out using them?  This is the same Syria that harbors all those terrorists.  Now who's rediculous sounding?



> Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer". Folks LEFT and RIGHT need to read it. Party loyalty is DESTROYING our great Republic.


 
I agree 100%



> Fiscal irresponsiblity is JUST FINE if a Republican does it. Pissing on the Constitution is just fine if it's done in the name of freedom.


 
please see above quote



> Folks, get a freakin' backbone! Sure we were attacked on 9/11, but the Founding Fathers would roll over in their grave to see that we we were so willing to trade Freedom for Security and to wage Agressive War.
> 
> I have never been so disappointed in my countrymen as I am now. We should be immune, or near to it, from propaganda and fear mongering - but apparently not so. Words cannot describe the anger and contempt I have for these lying SOB's who manufacture intelligence to scare the population.


 
Again I agree - but it's hardly the sole province of the evil Republicans.  Thier opponents are busy doing the same thing about them!



> If there were any possible way for me to believe otherwise, I would withhold judgement. There just is no way. SGTMAC, you strike me as a very intelligent, if party line individual. If you would research the build up to war from a non-partisan perspective, I believe that you would have to come to the inevitable conclusion that these people exaggerated and even outright fabricated intelligence in order to get the American people to back a war they had ALREADY decided upon. The information is out there.


 
This is the part that remains to be seen.  Did Bush want this war?  Of course.  Did he lie and / or exagerate?  I don't know.  But I know he _*wanted*_ to believe it.  That's bad enough.  However, we now know that Hussien WAS trying desperatly to maintain his WMDs.  It is also clear that he was defiant of the NATO restrictions.  Why would he be if he did not have dubious and threatening designs against his enemies?  From a *non-partisan *veiwpoint, it seems that there may have been some truth to the concerns.

For the record I am not a Republican so you can't lay that at my feet (just to forstall any mistaken assumptions )


What pisses me off the most is the backbighting and partisan politics on both sides bitching about starting this war when they should be working together to finish it and get our soldiers home!


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 16, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> What pisses me off the most is the backbighting and partisan politics on both sides bitching about starting this war when they should be working together to finish it and get our soldiers home!



I agree with that 100%.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 16, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> I have never been so disappointed in my countrymen as I am now. We should be immune, or near to it, from propaganda and fear mongering - but apparently not so. Words cannot describe the anger and contempt I have for these lying SOB's who manufacture intelligence to scare the population.


 
I was reading the post from tradrockrat and I noticed this quote from Jonathan Randall "We should be immune, or near to it, from propaganda and fear mongering

Why should we be immune, when no one else is? 

The American people in general live in a fantasy land of safety. They generally do not want to be told about anything bad that would make them face the reality that the world is not really a safe place. As soon as something as horrific as 9/11 happens they have no choice but to face reality, as horrible as that reality was. How many people even remembered the previous bombing of the twin towers prior to 9/11? How many people remembered Oklahoma City? In general people take these events, deal with them as best they can and move on, which is natural. But they also tend to pretend these things did not happen by returning to the fantasy that we are all safe and sound with in the US borders, when in truth we are not. International terrorism is not the only threat, there is domestic terrorism as well, but that is rarely discussed. 

As long as people do not except the fact that it just isn't a safe world they will be influenced by propaganda, and the fear mongering used to present that propaganda.


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 16, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> They generally do not want to be told about anything bad that would make them face the reality that the world is not really a safe place.


It is human nature to want to only hear and see good.  Nobody wants to dwell on the bad.  That is why Joe "six-pack" and Sally "Soccer Mom" can tell you what the past two seasons of NFL scores were, or can tell you what the half time beer commercial were for the last 5 years, but cannot tell you the difference between Osama and Saddam.  They couldn't even tell you WHERE Iraq or Afghanistan is.  However, it is important to be aware of things, as we all know.

I agree they have the illusion of safety, that is why they don't care.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 16, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> It is human nature to want to only hear and see good.


 
This is why they are easily swayed by propaganda and fear mongering.

This is a bit of subject of finding WMD but it is also linked based on some of the posts.

Who, after the gulf war, becomes the leading perpetrator of terrorist activity throughout the Territories as well as inside Israel? Today it is the second most powerful group, after Fatah, and is sometimes viewed as threatening the hegemony of the secular nationalists. It is currently the strongest opposition group to the peace process and the escalation of its terrorist activity through the murderous suicide bombings against civil targets in Israel?

Answer: Hamas

Who is in charge in Palestine right now?

How close is Palestine to Syria?

If there are WMD in Syria, should this be a concern?

I am not advocating attacks on Syria, I am just saying the Middle East is a very complicated situation and most people do not want to know anything about it.


----------



## tradrockrat (Feb 16, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Who, after the gulf war, becomes the leading perpetrator of terrorist activity throughout the Territories as well as inside Israel? Today it is the second most powerful group, after Fatah, and is sometimes viewed as threatening the hegemony of the secular nationalists. It is currently the strongest opposition group to the peace process and the escalation of its terrorist activity through the murderous suicide bombings against civil targets in Israel?
> 
> Answer: Hamas
> 
> ...


 

And this is really the crux of the matter.  The overly simplistic "propaganda" of both parties is failing to take this turmoil and complexity into account.


----------



## jazkiljok (Feb 16, 2006)

syria and iraq have never been friends. during gulf 1, syria sent troops to help dislodge saddam from kuwait. hafez and saddam despised each other.

now some iraq general points a finger to syria and says to USA - WMDs, they are over there--- with those BAATHISTS. i'm sure he had a big grin on his face when he was revealing that secret.

what was it "big yellow barrels with skull & bones painted on them"?

hey, i think i saw that movie.


----------



## jazkiljok (Feb 16, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> And this is really the crux of the matter.  The overly simplistic "propaganda" of both parties is failing to take this turmoil and complexity into account.



our foreign policy is a shambles because of the reckless disregard for complexity and nuance in diplomacy.


----------



## tradrockrat (Feb 16, 2006)

jazkiljok said:
			
		

> our foreign policy is a shambles because of the reckless disregard for complexity and nuance in diplomacy.


 
I agree, what's your point?  That this then makes it OK for the other side to disregard it?



> syria and iraq have never been friends. during gulf 1, syria sent troops to help dislodge saddam from kuwait. hafez and saddam despised each other.
> 
> now some iraq general points a finger to syria and says to USA - WMDs, they are over there--- with those BAATHISTS. i'm sure he had a big grin on his face when he was revealing that secret.
> 
> ...


 
Speaking of reckless disregard for the complexities...  BTW - I saw that movie too.  It ended with "insurgents" from Syria blowing up our soldiers in Iraq in the name of freeing their oppressed Iraqi brothers...oh wait that wasn't a movie, it was CNN.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 16, 2006)

jazkiljok said:
			
		

> syria and iraq have never been friends. during gulf 1, syria sent troops to help dislodge saddam from kuwait. hafez and saddam despised each other.
> 
> now some iraq general points a finger to syria and says to USA - WMDs, they are over there--- with those BAATHISTS. i'm sure he had a big grin on his face when he was revealing that secret.
> 
> ...


 
Both Syria and Iran have a Baathist party. The split between Syria and Iraq once again has to do with the complexity of the region. The split tends to be a religious one, not political. Iraq is majority Shi'i while Syria is majority Sunni. Both of the nation of Islam, but fighting amongst themselves. 

However in the past both sides have been known to unit to fight the west. This does not mean that is what may be happening now, but in the face of a Western invasion it is possible. Remember, one of the things that Bin Laden claims as justification for 9/11 was Western troops in Muslim holy lands. This can cause combative factions to unite. It of course did not and I do not believe will bring about the Jihad most terrorist organizations hope for, but it may be enough for Syria to help Iraq. Many years ago they were allies.



			
				jazkiljok said:
			
		

> our foreign policy is a shambles because of the reckless disregard for complexity and nuance in diplomacy.


 

And a complete miss understanding, or lack of understanding, or lack of desire to understand other cultures.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 17, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> I didn't care that he had WMD.  He was no threat to the United States.



Think outside the box and consider all the options.

I would ask you to remember that I live in Japan, which is in range of North Korean missiles and they may have nuclear weapons on them.

Do you think that we should tell everyone we have an alliance with in range of those missiles that we will not do anything for them, but expect them to be part of an alliance for freedom? The same goes for the goverments of Jordon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and many others that may be threatened by WMD from Iraq. Think about the strategic problems if the US said that everyone was on their own.

And as for threats to the US, what about biological weapons? You might recall that Hussein did admit to having Anthrax, but never proved that he got rid of them as he was required to.

Oh, and someone hit the US with Anthrax and caused a lot of disruption. There were only a small number of deaths- about 20, and if it had been something worse there would be a lot more. And no one got caught in regards to that attack.

I do not think that Hussein had anything to do with that attack, but I am not sure. And I do think he and many others noted the harm it caused the US and the way those responsible got away with it. Do you honestly think that someone that thinks like him would not consider doing it himself?

Let us not forget that in 1995 his son-in-law blew the lid off a bio weapon program that he was running right under the nose of UN inspectors. He obviously liked the idea of bio weapons and was looking into things that make Anthrax look like a bad cold.

Biological weapons should scare the hell out of you. They can be transported in a suitcase and kill millions of people. They need very little to be developed. And you can give them to Islamic terrorists and be assured that they would not use them against you if you live in a country where the majority is Muslim.

We know Hussein had ties to terrorists. Some that were on wanted lists were captured when Bahgdad fell. Obvioulsy not all of them hated him as much as the west- despite what you hear. But even those that did hate him would not use bio weapons in Iraq since it would kill millions of innocent Muslims and leave it weaker for what they see as a move by Isreal.

Thus, people like Hussein can develop biological weapons and give them to Islamic terrorists to use on 'infidel' countries. With a cut out like that, there is little chance that the weapons would be traced back to them.

This is the reality of modern war. A country half a world away can attack and kill millions of Americans and not have the attack traced to them.

It is no longer enough to look for big armies or a country that is within missile range. Now we have to worry about anyone with ties to people willing to die and access to simple medical labs.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 17, 2006)

jazkiljok said:
			
		

> syria and iraq have never been friends. during gulf 1, syria sent troops to help dislodge saddam from kuwait. hafez and saddam despised each other.



In gulf war one, Syrian troops never fired on troops from Iraq and stayed in the rear guarding supplies.

Take a look at the oil for food scandals and the flow of illeagle oil shipments. It is obvious that Syria had decent ties with Hussein.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 19, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> And as for threats to the US, what about biological weapons? You might recall that Hussein did admit to having Anthrax, but never proved that he got rid of them as he was required to.
> 
> Oh, and someone hit the US with Anthrax and caused a lot of disruption. There were only a small number of deaths- about 20, and if it had been something worse there would be a lot more. And no one got caught in regards to that attack.
> 
> They can be transported in a suitcase and kill millions of people. They need very little to be developed. And you can give them to Islamic terrorists and be assured that they would not use them against you if you live in a country where the majority is Muslim.


 
I am wandering off topic hear a bit.

Biological weapons do scare the hell out of me and Saddam had them and he had terrorist ties. And Im sure others in that region have both as well. 

And I believe the people of Japan have, fairly recent, had experience with being the victims of such a terrorist attack. Although I believe that would have been labeled domestic terrorism. 

And you are absolutely right about Biological weapons. For example a dirty bomb is easier to make and easier to get than a missile based nuke. And a heck of a lot easier to transport and can be equally as deadly. But using the anthrax issue as an example, you do not even need to use explosives. There are many ways to inject a dangerous biological agent into a population and there will be no boom to even warn you that it happened. This is incredibly terrifying. 

And you are correct the Middle East is a very complicated situation for the US. It is vitally important that the US gets intel from that area if for no other reason the number of terrorist organizations that can threaten the US and any other nation in the world. 

And, since you mentioned it, North Korea is a very scary situation, as you well know being so close.


----------



## Ray (Feb 19, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> That is why Joe "six-pack" and Sally "Soccer Mom" can tell you what the past two seasons of NFL scores were, or can tell you what the half time beer commercial were for the last 5 years, but cannot tell you the difference between Osama and Saddam. They couldn't even tell you WHERE Iraq or Afghanistan is.


You have a right to your opinions, even if they tend to stereotype a whole culture...Such statements have been labeled "bigotry" and so forth when applied to people other than average Americans....


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 19, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> You have a right to your opinions, even if they tend to stereotype a whole culture...Such statements have been labeled "bigotry" and so forth when applied to people other than average Americans....


 
I believe they were being applied to the average American since that is what the discussion was about at that time.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 19, 2006)

I am not sure the 'lack of education' is properly labeled bigotry. That anyone in America is unfamiliar with the geographic location of Afghanistan speaks more to the former than the latter. 

If it is bigotted to claim that the American population is woefully undereducated in geopolitical affairs, then I am so bigotted.

And I blame the media for allowing this travesty to continue. If the populace can not distinguish between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, the Fourth Estate is not doing its job.


----------



## Carol (Feb 20, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Both Syria and Iran have a Baathist party. The split between Syria and Iraq once again has to do with the complexity of the region. The split tends to be a religious one, not political. Iraq is majority Shi'i while Syria is majority Sunni. Both of the nation of Islam, but fighting amongst themselves.


 
To say that the split between Sunni and Shia is religious not political is not completely correct.  

Part of the picture can be illustrated by looking at Ireland, and the angst that was seen in the 26 Irish counties that are Catholic, and the 6 Northern Ireland couties that are Protestant.   It's more than what church one goes to...there are many political and social factors to the divide.   Example:  whether divorce should be legal or whether it should be forbidden under civil law as well as Canon law.

Another part of the picture is how people are categorized.  In the US, the government categorizes us by race.  In the American society, we also (rightly or wrongly) characterize one another by race.  In the Middle East and the Indian Subcontinent...areas where racial diversity is minimal...people are categorized by religion.  Within these categorizations are very powerful ethinc, cultural, and sociopolitical ties, and not all are alike.   Example: the Kurdish people are Sunni, as are the Baathists. 

And hence, the fighting.   The news reports these differences as religious, but there is so much more that seperates them.  

Thanks for letting me butt in


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 20, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> To say that the split between Sunni and Shia is religious not political is not completely correct.
> 
> Part of the picture can be illustrated by looking at Ireland, and the angst that was seen in the 26 Irish counties that are Catholic, and the 6 Northern Ireland couties that are Protestant. It's more than what church one goes to...there are many political and social factors to the divide. Example: whether divorce should be legal or whether it should be forbidden under civil law as well as Canon law.
> 
> ...


 
You are correct, and to say that the separation in the Middle East is purely religious is an over-simplification. However it is based in religion, although it could be said it is religious politics. The Middle East is categorizing mainly by religion, you are correct. But the Middle East has no separation of Church and state as does the US and the US categorizes by race and wealth or the lack thereof. Also Baathist are political party that is strongest or was strongest in Syria and Iran, their main ideology is secularism, socialism, and pan-Arab unionism. There are also moderates and extremists baathists that have split and Baath Party in Iraq was heavily Shiite. Originally the Baathists supported secularism as, by the way, does Osama Bin Laden although he is not Baathist.

But let me explain where I am coming with this point of view; the Crusades were religious and Mao&#8217;s take over of China was political. Ireland is actually more of a political split than religious and the Middle East is more of a religious split than political.

The split in Ireland is more of a political split than a religious one, but you are correct, religion is certainly pat of it. However this would require me to go in seriously off what the post is about. To attempt the short version; the split in Ireland tends to be over an Independent Irish state (not Catholicism vs. Protestantism). The British government is or was against an Independent Irish state and so were the Protestants in Ireland. Part of this had more to do with the land granted to the Protestants in Ireland by the crown. Also it had to do with a gross mishandling of the situation by the British either just after or towards the end of WW I, there are also bad British moved prior to this. 
 
(Side note: much of the current Israeli, Palestine issue is also the fault of the British government around the same time)

 However the majority of those wanting an independent Irish state are/were Catholic, those wanting British rule are/were Protestant. There was really no religious conflict there as compared to the religious conflict during the Crusades. Although, admittedly, it has become a part of the big picture in the independent Ireland issue. 

And of course, dealing with England, we could throw in Henry the VIII and other British historical figures into the religious mix, but generally there tends to be less of a religious issue and more of a power issue that used the church to gain power. But I am many miles away from the original post.
 
You are also correct about the Middle East situation, remember it is a very complicated area of the world. The main reason for the split between Sunni and Shia is religious, not political. However in the Middle East Government is religion, there is no separation of Church and state. But the split is still based in religion; it is however based in who should be the religious leader or successor to Mohammed. The Sunni say that the first four caliphs are the rightful successors to Mohammed where the Shiite say that Ali (cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam) and his descendants are the rightful successors and they reject the first four caliphs and see three of them as usurpers. 

However this is also off post. The main problem are that WMD that may be in Syria and that there are many terrorist organizations that are associated with Syria. Also there is a movement amongst terrorist organizations, similar to Baathists, to unite Sunni and Shiite against the West and one of the people that is a major supporter of this is Osama Bin Laden.


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 21, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> You have a right to your opinions, even if they tend to stereotype a whole culture...Such statements have been labeled "bigotry" and so forth when applied to people other than average Americans....


Sorry I hurt your feelings or made you uncomfortable.  If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, behaves like a duck, it must be a duck.  

Someone is always going to play that card as if it somehow trumps the whole game and nullifies everything.


----------

