or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Iraq's WMDs went to Syria.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Iraq's WMDs went to Syria.

post #1 of 134
Thread Starter 
This is a thread started as a result of a conversation with MarkUK in another thread. So rather than clog that one up, I decided to continue here.

MarkUK did not think that there was any indication that SH moved weapons to Syria prior to the current war, or at least that is how it seemed to me.

To quote MarkUK, "However since I am not starting out with the conclusion that Saddam must have buried/exported his weapons to make us look like idiots - because there is no evidence of that whatsoever, im afraid your articles are just wishful thinking, until some conclusive evidence exists."..."If sudan has Chemical weapons, there is more chance that they came from the US, Britain or France."..."you could sum up for me the evidence contained that links Saddams supposed WMD through Syria and then to Sudan..."

So...

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/coun...yria/chem.html
1997 - This lays out Syria's pursuit of WMD's since the early 70's. I cite this to establish Syrian mindset, well known for some time and the need for outside help to produce it. Notice who was known to be helping them. (Russia in case MarkUK is reading... err not reading)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...a/al-safir.htm
Locations of said WMD facilities.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/irq9910.htm
April 26, 1999 - Syria shipping (smuggling) oil from Iraq despite UN sanctions, showing once bitter enemies cooperating closely. This also establishing that smuggling to Syria has been known for a while.

http://www.news.telegraph.co.uk/news...15/wsyri15.xml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=30006
December 15, 2002 - Syria is smuggling arms into Iraq for a commission, despite UN sanctions. This, before the current war. Notice again who is directly tied to these activities. (Russia)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0306/S00177.htm
June 24, 2003 - Attack inside Syria based on intel that Syria was trying to smuggle Iraqi officials out of the country.

http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/24135.htm
September 16, 2003 - Covers the threat faced by Syria, including acknowledging possible WMD transfer from Iraq into Syria. Again notice who is helping Syria advance it's illicit military efforts. (Russia)


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=36376
December 30, 2003 - Report laying out details of contracts and arrangements between Iraq and Syria. Once again look who is knee deep. (Russia)

http://216.26.163.62/2003/me_iraq_10_08.html
October 8, 2003 - Report showing David Kay knew convoys of trucks went into Syria right before the war. It talks about the incestuous relationship between the countries at that point.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=36463
January 6, 2004 - Report stating that a relative of Syrian President Bashar Assad is hiding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in three locations in Syria.

http://www.nationalreview.com/geragh...0401070900.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/geragh...0401120834.asp
More info.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=36844
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/I...340941,00.html
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?i...storyid=670123

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...7/141224.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...jordan.terror/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=13282
April 26 - May 6, 2004 - AQ CW plan in Jordan disrupted. Chemicals and money come from Syria, maybe some of Iraq's original WMDs.

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=20828
May 15, 2004 - Interesting report linking Syria with Korea and possible WMD movement.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38581
May 20, 2004 - Report showing new evidence that the WMDs that Syria had may now be moved to Bakaa valley in Lebanon. New info appearing in the Mar - May 2004 period.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...1749-1468r.htm
May 25, 2004 - Another report of weapons trafficing between Iraq and Syria.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...reaking_1.html
June 11, 2004 - A report showing WMD components are leaving the country.

http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Joshua...ng-weapons.htm
July 11, 2004 - It appears that Syria knows this is going on.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...1235-4438r.htm
August 16, 2004 - Details about how the smuggling happened.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...news-headlines
September 19, 2004 - Toward the end of the article it states that the Syrian transfers are still being investigated by the US.

http://www.afrol.com/articles/13956
September 19, 2004 - A report stating that chemical weapons use is suspected in Sudan. Syria is connected in a number of ways and may be supplier, if true. US is ivestigating this also.

In conclusion, Just from these Google'd sources, it seems very clear that something was sent to Syria right before the war. Reports are trickling into the public eye that Syria is moving weapons, if not identical, similar to ones that the whole world seems to think that SH had. It appears that the issue is not mute, seeing as the US government is actively pursuing the investigation and strenuously pressuring the Syrian government. As far as the links to the Sudan, if you like I will post that also.

So Mark UK, I have stated the case that there is a VERY VERY GOOD chance that SH sent his weapons to Syria. Please tell me where I am wrong.
post #2 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX

I have stated the case that there is a VERY VERY GOOD chance that SH sent his weapons to Syria. Please tell me where I am wrong.

You're not.
post #3 of 134
According to this, we attacked the wrong country.

According to EVERYTHING we now know, we attacked the wrong country.

Bush attacks the wrong country and spends billions and billions of our next generation's money.

Yay! Let's reelect him!
post #4 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
According to this, we attacked the wrong country.

According to EVERYTHING we now know, we attacked the wrong country.

Bush attacks the wrong country and spends billions and billions of our next generation's money.

Yay! Let's reelect him!

To the contrary.

It seems that Iraq was feeding a lot of greedy mouths along with quite possibly AQ. Fox obtained a secret UN database.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html

I think the facts are starting to come to light.
post #5 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
It seems that Iraq was feeding a lot of greedy mouths along with quite possibly AQ. Fox obtained a secret UN database.

Typed in Excel in 1972, no doubt.
post #6 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Typed in Excel in 1972, no doubt.

Funny.

They did not say, but it seemed to me it was an inside source.
post #7 of 134
Quote:
Iraq's WMDs went to Syria.

Only if we want to start a war with them.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #8 of 134
Let me get this straight:

Iraq had WMD, and not only can we not find them in Iraq, but we *think* they were moved to another country while we were in the bathroom, I guess. So. You're saying that this administration invaded a country, lost track of all the WMD, allowed them to slip across the border into Syria, can't figure out how to find them now, and has been stuck with a WMD-less Iraq that is quickly descending into civil war?

And we should re-elect these people...why, again?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #9 of 134


Good points midwinter. This is just hilarious. I guess the Pentagon's golden boy Chalabi and "Curveball" were a "little" bit off base. If we believed Chalabi and 'Curveball" about the WMDs and invaded a country in large part thanks to their "intelligence"....this administration has got to be the most useless, incompetent ever....1050 US deaths, 10,000-20,000 wounded and countless of dead innocent Iraqis later.
post #10 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch


Good points midwinter. This is just hilarious. I guess the Pentagon's golden boy Chalabi and "Curveball" were a "little" bit off base. If we believed Chalabi and 'Curveball" about the WMDs and invaded a country in large part thanks to their "intelligence"....this administration has got to be the most useless, incompetent ever....1050 US deaths, 10,000-20,000 wounded and countless of dead innocent Iraqis later.

You forgot the $200 Billion flushed down the toilet.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #11 of 134
NaplesX:

Perhaps you should read this: It may answer some questions for you re. the location of those pesky WMDs.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdf

In the transcript of the interview, Kamel states categorically:

extracted:

Quote:
"I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed"
(p. 13).

Kamel specifically discussed the significance of anthrax, which he portrayed as the "main focus" of the biological programme (pp.07-08 ). Smidovich asked Kamel: "were weapons and agents destroyed?"

Kamel replied: "nothing remained".

He confirmed that destruction took place "after visits of inspection teams. You have important role in Iraq with this. You should not underestimate yourself. You are very effective in Iraq." (p.7)

Kamel added: "I made the decision to disclose everything so that Iraq could return to normal." (p. 08.)

Furthermore, Kamel describes the elimination of prohibited missiles: "not a single missile left but they had blueprints and molds for production. All missiles were destroyed." (p. 08.)

On VX, Kamel claimed: "they put it in bombs during last days of the Iran-Iraq war. They were not used and the programme was terminated." (p.12).

Ekeus asked Kamel: "did you restart VX production after the Iran-Iraq war?"

Kamel replied: "we changed the factory into pesticide production. Part of the establishment started to produce medicine [...] We gave insturctions [sic] not to produce chemical weapons." (p.13).

Despite the significance of these claims, it was not known that Kamel made this assertion until February 2003. Kamel's claim was first carried on 24 February 2003 by Newsweek, who reported that Kamel told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims (Newsweek, 3/3/03). Newsweek reported that the weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished. The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Newsweek reported.

The Bush administration, in making its case for war against Iraq cherrypicked Kamal Hussein's testimony, but ignored the inconvenient material about the destruction of missiles, and stocks of chemical and bio weapons, carried out shortly after the Gulf War before or during the time the UN inspection regime commenced. The lack of WMDs points to the accuracy of the Iraqi claim that they had nothing left, (barring a few old shells which had at some point may have been fitted with a chemical warhead).
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #12 of 134
Nice try Nappy! But as you can see no one is buying and it's not having the effect you wanted.


Maybe if you stopped going with the assumption that Bush is a good guy and did the right thing there.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #13 of 134
No, no, no!

Here's where all the WMDs are hidden...



Yes, it's LIECHTENSTEIN!
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #14 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
NaplesX:

Perhaps you should read this: It may answer some questions for you re. the location of those pesky WMDs.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdf

In the transcript of the interview, Kamel states categorically:

extracted:



The Bush administration, in making its case for war against Iraq cherrypicked Kamal Hussein's testimony, but ignored the inconvenient material about the destruction of missiles, and stocks of chemical and bio weapons, carried out shortly after the Gulf War before or during the time the UN inspection regime commenced. The lack of WMDs points to the accuracy of the Iraqi claim that they had nothing left, (barring a few old shells which had at some point may have been fitted with a chemical warhead).

How many links did I give you? That was only a fraction of the ones that I've found. I am not totally disregarding what you just posted. But I will tell you this; I do not trust the UN. It is an anti-american political entity that is only looking out for it's own interests.

The oil for food program has proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the UN needs an enema. Big time.

The UN collected BILLIONS in charges - approx. 2% on every barrel of oil to oversee the whole thing and insure honesty. They only checked 5 to 7% of the actual shipments and then on haphazardly. SH was left to dictate the rules and so the UN chose MONEY over doing the right thing.

So if you choose to align yourself with the UN that is fine, but not for me.
post #15 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
No, no, no!

Here's where all the WMDs are hidden...



Yes, it's LIECHTENSTEIN!

My namesake?!? Couldn't be...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #16 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Nice try Nappy! But as you can see no one is buying and it's not having the effect you wanted.


Maybe if you stopped going with the assumption that Bush is a good guy and did the right thing there.

Please tell me what effect i was looking for, again...

Anyway, I am sure you are right about everything that you say. So no sense arguing my failed view with you. I don't want to waste you time.
post #17 of 134
So which is worse?

Iraq with WMDs?

Or Syria with WMDs?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #18 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
So which is worse?

Iraq with WMDs?

Or Syria with WMDs?

Neither is worse than the horror of LIECHTENSTEIN with WMDs!!!
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #19 of 134
Like Ive said Naples, If you are on to something, Well done. Really.

Go Tell the Media, go tell Bush directly, because as far as the US State department is concerned, there is was no link they were aware of as of Last Wednesday.

I didn't see anything but 'Maybe, might have, possibly etc...' from the evidence you presented the other day, and you lost all chance of me taking you too seriously when I proved beyond doubt that you were not being honest in your researching.

And to be frankly honest, I don't have any intention of reading all of those links, because well, Im pissed with myself that I spent the best part of a weekend discussing something I dont really care about.

Anyway, you can have a limited apology if you found my poking fun too offensive, but hey - don't cheat next time.

Best Wishes

MarcUK - WITH A FUCKING 'C' GODDAMNIT!!!!
post #20 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Like Ive said Naples, If you are on to something, Well done. Really.

Go Tell the Media, go tell Bush directly, because as far as the US State department is concerned, there is was no link they were aware of as of Last Wednesday.

I didn't see anything but 'Maybe, might have, possibly etc...' from the evidence you presented the other day, and you lost all chance of me taking you too seriously when I proved beyond doubt that you were not being honest in your researching.

And to be frankly honest, I don't have any intention of reading all of those links, because well, Im pissed with myself that I spent the best part of a weekend discussing something I dont really care about.

Anyway, you can have a limited apology if you found my poking fun too offensive, but hey - don't cheat next time.

Best Wishes

MarcUK - WITH A FUCKING 'C' GODDAMNIT!!!!

No, it bothered me none.

I just was busy also with kids and stuff, and didn't feel like doing anything, sometimes you end up repeating things in these forums and I didn't want to get that ball rolling. But you will notice that I summarized for you in this thread.

But at least you are honest about things and I can respect that. Sorry for the spelling error. MarCUK... I got it now
post #21 of 134
Naples,

You know, If I went with my gut reaction, I'd quite honestly believe that Saddams weapons are spread all over the god damn middle east.

But I work with evidence, not emotion.
post #22 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
So which is worse?

Iraq with WMDs?

Or Syria with WMDs?

If Syrias WMDs are as bad as Iraqs then neither.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #23 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Naples,

You know, If I went with my gut reaction, I'd quite honestly believe that Saddams weapons are spread all over the god damn middle east.

But I work with evidence, not emotion.

I couldn't agree more.

But if you are to listen to many of the posters here and pundits, you are led to believe that SH was just a misguided pup that was being gently controlled by the UN and there was no need for any further action.

This new report by FOX will blow the lid off of the UN. Trust me, right now the UN is complete damage control mode and I am sure their shredders are working overtime.

Saddam had their number, and was playing them like a fiddle and the rest of the world as well. He was milking everyone and actively pursuing sanctioned weapons. The French and the Russians and Germany were making $100's of BILLIONS off of the program, selling him those same weapons. There were AQ front companies dealing with UN OFF program. It was a total mess. These are facts, not feelings at this point.

And the sad part of it all is they found it is HIGHLY possible that money intended for the Iraqi people, through OFF, is being used now to kill them and US/UK soldiers. The UN as a whole could have stood up against SH had he not owned France, Germany, Russia and many others. That is what this all boils down to. I feel the UN let the world down and let this war happen. I also think that will come to light very quickly now.

I contend that Bush found out about this stuff and put an end to it. That can't be a bad thing IMO.
post #24 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Please tell me what effect i was looking for, again...

Anyway, I am sure you are right about everything that you say. So no sense arguing my failed view with you. I don't want to waste you time.


No. I'm not right about everything I say.


It's just that you're trying to invent a justification for this war.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #25 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I couldn't agree more.

But if you are to listen to many of the posters here and pundits, you are led to believe that SH was just a misguided pup that was being gently controlled by the UN and there was no need for any further action.

This new report by FOX will blow the lid off of the UN. Trust me, right now the UN is complete damage control mode and I am sure their shredders are working overtime.

Saddam had their number, and was playing them like a fiddle and the rest of the world as well. He was milking everyone and actively pursuing sanctioned weapons. The French and the Russians and Germany were making $100's of BILLIONS off of the program, selling him those same weapons. There were AQ front companies dealing with UN OFF program. It was a total mess. These are facts, not feelings at this point.

And the sad part of it all is they found it is HIGHLY possible that money intended for the Iraqi people, through OFF, is being used now to kill them and US/UK soldiers. The UN as a whole could have stood up against SH had he not owned France, Germany, Russia and many others. That is what this all boils down to. I feel the UN let the world down and let this war happen. I also think that will come to light very quickly now.

I contend that Bush found out about this stuff and put an end to it. That can't be a bad thing IMO.




About your last sentence. Then why hasn't Bush said anything about this before?


Backtracking after the fact to find a reason isn't a good way to justify anything.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #26 of 134
Im gonna hate myself in the morning!

from your link http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/24135.htm

"Since the 1970s Syria has pursued what is now one of the most advanced Arab state chemical weapons (CW) capabilities. It has a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin that can be delivered by aircraft or ballistic missiles, and has engaged in the research and development of more toxic and persistent nerve agents such as VX."

This alone could be the source of the supposed Sudan weapons. It shows Syria didn't need Iraqi weapons at all. Wether they took them is a different matter I agree.

Before I address the specifics of Syrias WMD programs, let me first discuss press reports that Iraq covertly transferred weapons of mass destruction to Syria in an attempt to hide them from UN inspectors and Coalition forces.

Since when do press reports make it Intelligence?. Ok better not answer that?

We have seen these reports, reviewed them carefully, and see them as cause for concern. Thus far, we have been unable to confirm that such transfers occurred

That is from sept 16, 1 year ago. Has there been any evidence suggesting otherwise since then. Ive not heard any.
post #27 of 134
from your first link

Syria's chemical weapon effort has relied heavily on foreign help. Former CIA Director William Webster testified in 1989 that "West European firms were instrumental in supplying the required precursor chemicals and equipment. Without the provision of these key elements, Damascus would not have been able to produce chemical weapons."

Like I said, the weapons (although worded slighly differently) came from the US, UK or France. Apparently Germany and Russia as well. No link here to Iraq's WMD of the late 90's/2000's

from your second link

Nothing but photos/maps of apparently of Bases in Syria for the ChemWeps established in the first link, not Iraqs WMD of the late 90's/2000's

from the 3rd link

This is about Oil in 1999, and was well known, but there is no suggestion here of WMD. Perhaps Saddam floated them down the oil pipe?

from 4th and 5th links,

This is weapons going from Syria to Iraq, not the other way around. If Saddam already had these weapons, why would he be importing more, costing him money, but exporting his own?

To be continued....
post #28 of 134
from the next link

U.S. military forces crossed into Syria and engaged in a shooting match with border guards last Wednesday after destroying a caravan that was suspected of carrying Saddam Hussein or members of his family, Defense officials said Monday.

A family caravan expedition is not WMD!

from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=36376

no explanation of where Saddams WMD are/were.

from http://216.26.163.62/2003/me_iraq_10_08.html

"Scud missile fuel is only useful in Scud missiles," Kay said. "No other class of missiles that Iraq has. And yet, Iraq declared that it got rid of all its scud missiles in the early 1990s. Why would you continue to produce Scud missile fuel if you didn't have Scuds?"

Scud missile fuel is Not WMD. Where are the Iraqi scud Missiles? Could the fuel not be sold for the Scud missiles that Syria had already built on their own? iDunno.

from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=36463

A relative of Syrian President Bashar Assad is hiding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in three locations in Syria, according to intelligence sources cited by an exiled opposition party.

People with large grudges are not usually reliable intel. Check out that Iraqi guy raided by the US, forget his name - was supposed to be the Iraqi Interim President.

n an exclusive interview yesterday with the London Telegraph, Assad came close to admitting his country possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

But we already established where they came from earlier. They are not likely Saddams.

TO be continued....
post #29 of 134
Quote:

From those intrepid FoxnewsHounds:
Quote:
Shays said its possible the United Stations may not have needed to go to war against Saddam.

United States?
United Nations?
United STATIONS?

Man, talking about just making shit up - now there's a new world power we never knew about!
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #30 of 134
Im not going to go through the rest. If you think one of those artices has the definate proof let me know.

What we do know.

Saddam Hussain was evil
Iraq had WMD at some point
Syria is Evil
Syria appears to have its own WMD
The whole fucking world appears to have helped Syria get its WMD.
Small Armaments etc (not WMD) went from Syria to Iraq in 1999-2002
Things not specified (non WMD specified-fuel)went from Iraq to Syria at some point before the war.

Yes Its possible Saddam exported his WMD to Syria and Syria exported them to Sudan and then Sudan fired 5 of them off but then sent them Back. Does it look like the whole ME, russia and Europe, (dont forget the US sold multiple billion $ of Arms to Iraq during the 80's too) are a bunch of deceitful devious WMD smuggling dollar whores, maybe.

BUT

You do not have conclusive evidence of this.

Im sorry, you dont. Get over it.
post #31 of 134
Yes, get over it, or I will be forced to find some very embarrasing photos of you during the 80's

see ya later
Marc
post #32 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
From those intrepid FoxnewsHounds:
United States?
United Nations?
United STATIONS?

Man, talking about just making shit up - now there's a new world power we never knew about!

They slipped up and let out the truth! The UNITED STATIONS is Rupert Murdoch's plan to use his media empire for Total World Domination. Expect the stupid minion who typed this story up, and whoever was supposed to be watching over him, to die soon in sudden "accidents" or of "natural causes".
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #33 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by too many people
Saddam's WMD -> Syria...

Do they mean the WMD that Iraq wasn't capable of producing or the WMD stocks that weren't viable since a few weeks to a month after they were produced back in the 80s? Oh, wait. Those are both the same.

Funny how close to 15 years of inspections detailing Iraqi WMD, including now ~2 years of inspections by the UN and US, all of which demonstrated there were no large stocks and Iraq coulnd't produce anything, some kids are still going on about this.

Only someone really desperate for attention would have started this thread at this point, since the premise automatically precludes any possibility of a rational discussion.
post #34 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
How many links did I give you?

Lots and lots, but until the time that WMDs (genuinely) show up in Iraq or Syria, the links are worthless.Combined intelligence should have some clue as to where to look....the US budget alone is $40 billion +. Are they that incompetent?

Quote:
That was only a fraction of the ones that I've found. I am not totally disregarding what you just posted.

Don't forget that it was Kamal's testimony that the Bush Administration used to tell the world how "dangerous" Iraq was, how there was an "imminent threat": recall the Iraqi drones armed with mustard gas and sarin about to swarm over the Atlantic to hit the east coast...sending so many people diving for cover and duct-taping their houses.... The problem was, which those in the anti-war camp knew all along, was that the weapons listed in Kamals report, quoted by Bush, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Blair and echoed verbatim by the US media, were non-existent. And now, 18 months after the war, with no trace of anything that qualifies as a ''WMD", it looks as if the Saddam regime was the honest party, while Bush and his allies were the liars! This really is not the way for a responsible superpower to act in the world. If Saddam, of all people, appears more truthful than Bush, then the US credibility in the world must be at a pretty low ebb.

Quote:
But I will tell you this; I do not trust the UN. It is an anti-american political entity that is only looking out for it's own interests.

The US regards the UN with extraordinary duplicity. When the UN make decisions that may cause inconvenience to an ally, for example those dozens of resolutions that Israel has blatantly ignored during the last 3 decades, thumbing their noses at the world community, then we regard the UN as a waste of time. But when they pass something like resolution 1441 against Iraq, then we embrace them. Duplicity is not the way the a responsible superpower should behave in the world.

Quote:
The oil for food program has proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the UN needs an enema. Big time. The UN collected BILLIONS in charges - approx. 2% on every barrel of oil to oversee the whole thing and insure honesty. They only checked 5 to 7% of the actual shipments and then on haphazardly. SH was left to dictate the rules and so the UN chose MONEY over doing the right thing.

The oil for food did nothing for the Iraqis. All the funds were diverted by Saddam and his thugs for their own self-enrichment. The UN should have lifted the sanctions to allow the Iraqi people to recover from the Gulf War and the horrendous decade that followed. The best way of removing Saddam would have been free trade with the rest of the world, and the Iraqi people then may have had more of a shot of taking care of their own business independently. But as far as the US (administrations) were concerned, no Saddam meant that the future war planned by the PNAC in 1995 would have had no chance of geting off the ground; the notion of a genuine Iraqi democracy had no legs, so the notion of lifting sanctions had no chance, which, as we recall, was vetoed by the UNSC on a regular basis during the 1990s.

Quote:
So if you choose to align yourself with the UN that is fine, but not for me. [/B]

Did you agree with the UN when 1441 was passed? Did you align with the UN decision when the action against Afghanistan was approved?

One more thing about Iraq's supposed WMD:
Iraq was supposed to be armed to the teeth with chemical and bio weapons, according to Bush and co. So what did we do? We sent 140,000 troops into a potentially extremely dangerous situation, many of whom had no protection against such weapons! This implies the Pentagon knew that the threat was grossly inflated or non existent...or would they be willing to send all those people to their certain deaths?

Also, why would Saddam have these WMDs in the first place? Probably a last ditch resort in the event of invasion by a militarily vastly superior power. This happened twice, in 1991 and 2003. How many WMDs were used? A big fat zero, that's what. That was the threat...they didn't even use them when their country was invaded, both when they had them, and of course when they didnt!

Quagmire Accomplished: $200 billion either wasted or funneled to (often corrupt) businesses run by his oil and defense buddies, $$ hundreds of billions more to pay in the future, 1050 American soldiers dead so far, many more to come, 13,000 Iraqi civilians killed so far, Iraqi infrastructure decimated, an explosion of terrorism throughout the middle east, and universal condemnation from the rest of the world.

Nice one George W. Bush, you fxcking traitor.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #35 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
No. I'm not right about everything I say.


It's just that you're trying to invent a justification for this war.

You see, I never even mentioned that. This is a thread about wether or not Iraq moved materials and weapons into Syria BEFORE the war or if tit was even possible.

You are jumping ahead of yourself.

And as I have stated and is fact, GWB and this admin gave a LIST (as in, more than one, or two or five) of reasons to go to war.

I know that there has been many a thread about that particular subject, and I think we all know your stand on the war in Iraq, so why keep typing the same tired thing. Especially since, this is a different subject matter.

Just an idea. Maybe a dumb one, but it just popped into my head. Watcha think?
post #36 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
About your last sentence. Then why hasn't Bush said anything about this before?


Backtracking after the fact to find a reason isn't a good way to justify anything.

Did you skip this part:

"IMO"

In My Opinion.

Am I allowed to have one of those? Can I?
post #37 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Yes, get over it, or I will be forced to find some very embarrasing photos of you during the 80's

see ya later
Marc

Oh man not that. Remember Parachute pants?
post #38 of 134
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh man not that. Remember Parachute pants?

Oh dear god. Don't forget the Michael Jackson jacket you had to wear with them.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #39 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Lots and lots, but until the time that WMDs (genuinely) show up in Iraq or Syria, the links are worthless.Combined intelligence should have some clue as to where to look....the US budget alone is $40 billion +. Are they that incompetent?



Don't forget that it was Kamal's testimony that the Bush Administration used to tell the world how "dangerous" Iraq was, how there was an "imminent threat": recall the Iraqi drones armed with mustard gas and sarin about to swarm over the Atlantic to hit the east coast...sending so many people diving for cover and duct-taping their houses.... The problem was, which those in the anti-war camp knew all along, was that the weapons listed in Kamals report, quoted by Bush, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Blair and echoed verbatim by the US media, were non-existent. And now, 18 months after the war, with no trace of anything that qualifies as a ''WMD", it looks as if the Saddam regime was the honest party, while Bush and his allies were the liars! This really is not the way for a responsible superpower to act in the world. If Saddam, of all people, appears more truthful than Bush, then the US credibility in the world must be at a pretty low ebb.



The US regards the UN with extraordinary duplicity. When the UN make decisions that may cause inconvenience to an ally, for example those dozens of resolutions that Israel has blatantly ignored during the last 3 decades, thumbing their noses at the world community, then we regard the UN as a waste of time. But when they pass something like resolution 1441 against Iraq, then we embrace them. Duplicity is not the way the a responsible superpower should behave in the world.



The oil for food did nothing for the Iraqis. All the funds were diverted by Saddam and his thugs for their own self-enrichment. The UN should have lifted the sanctions to allow the Iraqi people to recover from the Gulf War and the horrendous decade that followed. The best way of removing Saddam would have been free trade with the rest of the world, and the Iraqi people then may have had more of a shot of taking care of their own business independently. But as far as the US (administrations) were concerned, no Saddam meant that the future war planned by the PNAC in 1995 would have had no chance of geting off the ground; the notion of a genuine Iraqi democracy had no legs, so the notion of lifting sanctions had no chance, which, as we recall, was vetoed by the UNSC on a regular basis during the 1990s.



Did you agree with the UN when 1441 was passed? Did you align with the UN decision when the action against Afghanistan was approved?

One more thing about Iraq's supposed WMD:
Iraq was supposed to be armed to the teeth with chemical and bio weapons, according to Bush and co. So what did we do? We sent 140,000 troops into a potentially extremely dangerous situation, many of whom had no protection against such weapons! This implies the Pentagon knew that the threat was grossly inflated or non existent...or would they be willing to send all those people to their certain deaths?

Also, why would Saddam have these WMDs in the first place? Probably a last ditch resort in the event of invasion by a militarily vastly superior power. This happened twice, in 1991 and 2003. How many WMDs were used? A big fat zero, that's what. That was the threat...they didn't even use them when their country was invaded, both when they had them, and of course when they didnt!

Quagmire Accomplished: $200 billion either wasted or funneled to (often corrupt) businesses run by his oil and defense buddies, $$ hundreds of billions more to pay in the future, 1050 American soldiers dead so far, many more to come, 13,000 Iraqi civilians killed so far, Iraqi infrastructure decimated, an explosion of terrorism throughout the middle east, and universal condemnation from the rest of the world.

Nice one George W. Bush, you fxcking traitor.


Couple of things.

The UN is in principle a good thing. Many members are Arab fundamentalist nations. Right now it is a corrupt entity and you know it. If you don't then please don't reply because you are living in a parallel universe, and the fact that you are talking to us here in this one could have serious repercussions.

Who made a fuss about GWB going to the UN for approval?

The left wing democrats. that's who. GWB was trying to play nice and did it do him any good? No.

The intel community is being pummeled right now, why?

Because the left wing Democrats want someone to point a finger at for 9/11 and the trivial detail of "stockpiles of weapons" issue. Forget that everything was in place to produce said WMD's, who cares. Forget that SH had major clean up time before the war started to do what he wanted. Let's blame someone. As usual who do they blame? Well, there is an easy republican "war mongering" racist, oil puppet, target in the white house. The intelligence community is getting blamed.

$200 billion figure you used includes the ongoing war in Afghanistan along with other WOT efforts.

So Israel is the problem? Now I see it.

You are posting canned arguments from other threads and on things that do not relate to the thread at hand.

I thought that anyone could start a thread. That means that you can start a thread called "Bush Lied, Bush deceived, Bush Lied, US and Israel are evil. Oh did I mention Bush Lied." if you so desire. You and Jimbo can impress each other with your wit and cunning. It would be the best thread of all time. So many people would visit from around the globe to see the intellectual marvel that it is. I bet you might even set a world record on amount of posts and maybe even longevity.

It would actually cause me to have some respect for you. Being that we are discussing the possibility of Iraq moving weapons into Syria PRIOR to this current war, and not the current war in Iraq.

Watcha think?
post #40 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Oh dear god. Don't forget the Michael Jackson jacket you had to wear with them.

One word...

Mullet
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Iraq's WMDs went to Syria.