Iraqi WMD mystery solved?

[Don Roley]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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’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]

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.