Iraqi WMD mystery solved?

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

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).

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.

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

hey, i think i saw that movie.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.