Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria

[Yoder777]

I already want back the time in my life wasted watching Moore. Can you imagine my indifference to anything else he might say?

It's a refutation of Michael Moore.

 

[Yoder777]

What does the future of Iraq look like? Is there reason to be optimistic?

 

[variant]

What does the future of Iraq look like? Is there reason to be optimistic?

That's a bit off topic don't you think?

 

[Chris81]

What does the future of Iraq look like?

It looks like a Shia lead Islamic Republic allied with Iran and a state sponsor of terrorism against Israel.

Is there reason to be optimistic?

No!

 

[Yoder777]

That's a bit off topic don't you think?

It's relevant as to whether the war was worth fighting in the first place. If Iraq ends up being a more dangerous country than it was under Saddam, the whole argument about his weapons of mass destruction collapses.

 

[Yoder777]

It looks like a Shia lead Islamic Republic allied with Iran and a state sponsor of terrorism against Israel.

Is long as there is an American or international presence, how is that possible?

 

[Chris81]

Is long as there is an American or international presence, how is that possible?

I would imagine at some point we will leave that country. Unless we follow the Japan, Germany, or South Korea models and maintain a permanent base in that country. I certainly hope we don't do that but we don't tend to want to leave a country after we have invaded it. Even if we maintain a base in Iraq consider this bit of History. For most of the time that we have been in South Korea it has been ruled as by authoritarian regime until just recently adopting a democratic system of government. In the end the Iraqis will put in place the government it desires and it will certainly not be a western style democracy.

 

[variant]

It's relevant as to whether the war was worth fighting in the first place. If Iraq ends up being a more dangerous country than it was under Saddam, the whole argument about his weapons of mass destruction collapses.

The weapons of mass destruction argument already collapsed. There is no way Iraq was a significant enough danger to warrant an invasion.

It's also kind of a trump card, once we played it against Iraq, countries all over the world knew we coulden't do it again and several like Iran and North Korea have been progressing in their nuclear armaments.

The argument that we should improve conditions in other countries by invading them is amazingly bad as an alternative, and our very presence in the middle east should be questioned as to whether it increases or decreases our security, not just in Iraq.

 

[Yoder777]

In the end the Iraqis will put in place the government it desires and it will certainly not be a western style democracy.

Would it still be a friend of the United States?

 

[Yoder777]

The weapons of mass destruction argument already collapsed.

Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq
Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada
The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy.
U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq - msnbc.com

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results
By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com

Former Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada discusses the reality of WMDs in Iraq and how they were smuggled out before the Americans arrived.

YouTube - Sarah Palin; George Bush.......Were They Right About The WMDs?
​

Saddam general: WMDs in Syria
Another former confidant of ex-dictator makes claim, also links Iraq to al-Qaida 
A former general and friend of Saddam Hussein who defected but maintains close contact with Iraq claims the regime supported al-Qaida with intelligence, finances and munitions and believes weapons of mass destruction are hidden in Syria.
Saddam general: WMDs in Syria

Vindicated for Removing Saddam
The Duelfer Report, the final assessment of the Iraq Survey Group, states that a former Iraqi intelligence officer testified that the M16 Directorate “had a plan to produce and weaponize nitrogen mustard in rifle grenades and a plan to bottle sarin and sulfur mustard in perfume sprayer and medicine bottles which they would ship to the United States and Europe.” The plot was not launched because of an inability to get the ingredients for the weapons. This substantiates intelligence received in 1998 that prompted the British government to put its airports and seaports on alert because Iraqis were planning to smuggle anthrax into several countries including the United Kingdom inside bottles used for cosmetics, cigarette lighters, perfume sprays, and other apparently harmless items.

The Iraq Survey Group also found that the M14 Directorate was giving terrorist training to Iraqis, Palestinians, Syrians, Yemenis, Lebanese, Egyptians, Sudanese and other nationals at Salman Pak. The site that had an airliner and other Iraqi defectors reported that it was being used to provide training in tactics including hijacking. According to reporter Stephen Hayes, other documents show that Iraq trained 2,000 terrorists each year since 1999 at three camps. The ISG also said that it received testimony that Iraq had tried to recruit a former member of Hamas to kill Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at the Western Wall in Jerusalem using an unmanned aerial vehicle loaded with C4 explosives. Detainees later admitted that an undeclared site existed where such vehicles had been produced that ran test flights beyond the range allowed by the United Nations.


The Bush Administration could have saved its own credibility and that of the United States by explaining that the distinction between having the ability to quickly produce WMD and having actual stockpiles is minimal. The ISG confirmed that dual-use facilities had “assets that could be converted for BW [biological weapons] agent production within 4 to 5 weeks after the decision to do so.” One site had the ability to “provide the core of an alternative break-out capability…perhaps within 2 to 3 weeks.” Furthermore, Iraqi intelligence operated “a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations” and Iraq “intended to develop smallpox and possibly other viral pathogens.”


As for nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein told his interrogator that he’d restart that program once U.N. sanctions were lifted, which he expected to happen in 2004. Even if they were not lifted, they were becoming weaker and weaker and the day was coming soon when Saddam would feel comfortable restarting his nuclear weapons work. These facts bolster the case for removing Saddam Hussein without even mentioning the possibility that WMDs went to Syria. Satellite photos provide credibility to the testimony of a Syrian journalist who identified three sites they were shipped to.
Vindicated for Removing Saddam | Freedom Center Students

We can't leave Iraq as a haven for terrorists. It would be completely irresponsible.

 

[jgarden]

It's relevant as to whether the war was worth fighting in the first place. If Iraq ends up being a more dangerous country than it was under Saddam, the whole argument about his weapons of mass destruction collapses.

The argument concerning the presence of weapons of mass destruction and whether the Iraqi War was worth fighting has been answered long ago.

Only the "hard-liners" are still trying to "justify-the-unjustifiable!"

 

[Yoder777]

The argument concerning the presence of weapons of mass destruction and whether the Iraqi War was worth fighting has been answered long ago.

Only the "hard-liners" are still trying to "justify-the-unjustifiable!"

Even if the war wasn't worth pursuing in the first place, it would be irresponsible to leave it a worse, more dangerous place than it was under Saddam.

 

[Chris81]

Would it still be a friend of the United States?

It all depends on what you mean by 'friend'. If you mean a trusted ally of the United States, then I would say no. If you mean a country that is not an enemy of United States foreign policy, then I would say possibly yes.

 

[variant]

Even if the war wasn't worth pursuing in the first place, it was be irresponsible to leave it a worse, more dangerous place than it was under Saddam.

Thats the argument for staying in Iraq not the one for going there.

 

[variant]

The argument concerning the presence of weapons of mass destruction and whether the Iraqi War was worth fighting has been answered long ago.

Only the "hard-liners" are still trying to "justify-the-unjustifiable!"

So thats enough for you?

We found unrefined uranium.

Chemical weapons.

The word of a former regime General.

Mustard gas.

Assets that could potentially be converted for Biological warfare.
(note that you can make biological weapons in just about any laboratory).

And dreaded.

Plans to develop nuclear weapons.

This obviously warranted an immediate invasion.

 

[jgarden]

Even if the war wasn't worth pursuing in the first place, it was be irresponsible to leave it a worse, more dangerous place than it was under Saddam.

American troops have done everything that was expected if them and more - but it is beyond their power to guarantee that Iraq will be a peaceful nation after they leave!

 

[Yoder777]

Thats the argument for staying in Iraq not the one for going there.

It would defeat the purpose of having gone there in the first place.

 

[Yoder777]

So thats enough for you?

We found unrefined uranium.

Chemical weapons.

The word of a former regime General.

Mustard gas.

Assets that could potentially be converted for Biological warfare.
(note that you can make biological weapons in just about any laboratory).

And dreaded.

Plans to develop nuclear weapons.

This obviously warranted an immediate invasion.

You didn't mention Saddam's harboring of and financial support to terrorists.

We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeerawould, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)
The lies of Michael Moore. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

 

[variant]

It would defeat the purpose of having gone there in the first place.

Just as the Iranian revolution defeated the purpose of meddling with their country for decades.

 

[Yoder777]

I am not a conservative or a Republican. I am just trying to look at the Iraq war realistically, that Saddam was not innocent of supporting terrorism and possessing weapons of mass destruction, and that it would be irresponsible for the United States to abandon Iraq in chaos. I don't have an opinion on whether war was the best option for removing Saddam, but once you break it, you bought it.