• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The WMDs Are In Syria

Verv

Senior Veteran
Apr 17, 2005
7,277
672
Gyeonggido
✟40,959.00
Country
Korea, Republic Of
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Before I comment I would like to point out that both sides have it tough when it comes to proof.
I'd also like to point out that people are bad-mouthing Americans and saying that they cannot 'pick out countries on maps,' etc.
But I think those people have never really traveled the world thoroughly and really discussed politics with people -- people are idiots everywhere, you meet stupid from every country and in every place; saying the Americans are exceptionally stupid is ridiculous.
But on with it:
What munitions? What mobile chemical trailers? Where are the weapons? What evidence do you have? Please link.
Iraqi trailer could have carried chemical and biological weapons lab.
It goes on:
"Tests of the trailer's surface areas have not detected biological agents and the vehicle appears to have been scrubbed with a caustic ammonia-like chemical, he said.
"It was pretty thoroughly washed," he said.
But it was similar in configuration and design to mobile biological agent laboratories that US intelligence learned about before the war from an Iraqi scientist, he said.
It had a fermenter, gas cylinders to supply clean air for production and a system to capture and compress exhaust gas to eliminate any telltale signature - a function not normally used for legitimate biological processes, Cambone said. "
The idea was that there really was a bio-chemical weapons lab that was mobile; it seems suspicious and very smart of Hussein.
There was a second mobile lab even found in Northern Iraq (Mosul), and authorities noted again "U.S. and British experts have concluded that the trailer "does not appear to perform any function beyond what the defector says it was for, which is the production of biological agents," Cambone said. " (This time from CNN)
It had to be declassified by Sen. Santorum apparently, but it finally came out that there was in fact some bio-chemical munitions in Iraq:
Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist." (Fox)
The items were apparently degraded, but specific dates on these items were not provided and the chemical agents still could have posted lethal threats and converted into weapons use. When we are talking about deadly c hemicals, we should try not to mess around.
I enjoy how upon the discovery of these munitions it suddenly is claimed that these were 'the wrong munitions,' but regardless, I never thought there were some mysterious 'right munitions' that were described.
What are the right munitions and where were they described?
We do know that Iraq rebuilt chemical weapons factories that we suspect would add to his inventory after the 1998 inspections.
And if we want to talk about Syria, I have this to say:
It is interesting to research the notion of Iraq moving its' chemical weapons to Syria. I found a very interesting piece of information from 'Insight On The News':
On Dec. 24, 2002, nearly three months before fighting in Iraq began, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accused Saddam Hussein's regime of transferring key materials for his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs to Syria in convoys of 18-wheel trucks to hide them from U.N. weapons inspectors. "There is information we are verifying, but we are certain that Iraq has recently moved chemical or biological weapons into Syria," Sharon told Channel Two television in Israel.
Take a look at a clip from the Newsmax article:
"I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMD out of Iraq before the war," stated John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security.
According to Shaw, Russian units hid Saddam's arsenal inside Syria and in Lebanon's Bekka valley.
"While in Iraq I uncovered detailed information that Spetsnatz units shredded records and moved all WMD and specified advanced munitions out of Iraq to Syria and Lebanon," stated Shaw during an exclusive interview.
"I received information from several sources naming the exact Russian units, what they took and where they took both WMD materials and conventional explosives. Moscow made a 2001 agreement with Saddam Hussein to clear up all Russian involvement in WMD systems in Iraq," stated Shaw.
Shaw's assertions match the information provided by U.S. military forces that satellite surveillance showed extensive large-vehicle traffic crossing the Syrian border prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
It goes on to even note that there had been a history of the Russians supplying to the Iraqis valuable weapons:
Shaw's information also backs allegations by a wide variety of sources of Russia's direct involvement in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. One U.N. bioterrorism expert announced that Russia has been Iraq's "main supplier of the materials and know-how to weaponize anthrax, botulism and smallpox."
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Robert Goldberg cited former U.N. weapons inspector Richard Spertzel, who stated that Moscow supplied Baghdad with fermentation equipment to produce biotoxins.
Russia has been fundamental in supply:
Iraq did most of its WMD killing using Russian-made MiG and Sukhoi aircraft equipped with chemical sprayers...
Iraq obtained Russian delivery systems and the same inventory of Russian-made chemical weapons at the same time. Iraqi SU-22 Fitter attack jets were armed with Warsaw Pact-designed bombs filled with chemical weapons. Iraq used these Russian jet fighters to drop chemical weapons on Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war.
It also reminds me of the time that I read Russia aided the Iraqi military by providing plans detailing the invasion.
I read another article from the Telegraph to see more substantiating the notion that the weapons may have moved to Syria and found this quotation from David Kay, the former head of the committee to find the WMDs in Iraq:
"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."
It is also interesting to note that there are others who harbor this theory, a lot of others, including the former Chief of the Israeli Defense Force from 2002 to 2005, General Yaalon in a NY Sun article.
But to be fair, even though it has been admitted that there has been weapons traffic across the borders, non-supporters point out:
Although Syria helped Iraq evade U.N.-imposed sanctions by shipping military and other products across its borders, the investigators "found no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD." Because of the insular nature of Saddam Hussein's government, however, the investigators were "unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials." (WashingtonPost)
Overall, I think there are more than strong reasons to believe that if one were to dig around enough in Syria you could get to the bottom of this, but I am certain that for years no one will ever get the chance.
Since Hussein could not win the war, he knew that he would need to make an attempt to win the more long term political battle through beridding himself of the risky elements to his regime that would have validated his overthrow. His only shot at saving face in the eyes of the political world would be to get rid of the weapons as best as he could, striking a very large political victory for himself.
His only victory could be political, and knowing en avance the pressure that he faced I wager he got rid of his weapons as soon as he possibly could have when the pressure was put upon him for the second time.
 

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,768
7,823
44
New Jersey
✟212,869.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Syria has been the prime suspect for the WMDs since the beginning of the war. With the weapons not present in Iraq, Syria is the only remaining place to look. I wonder why we haven't pressed harder to look there, aside from potential conflicts with Iran.
 
Upvote 0

Yusuf Evans

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2005
10,057
611
Iraq
✟13,443.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
nvxplorer said:
If the WMDs are in Syria, why have they not been used against Israel?


At this point, Syria is being careful. Granted, they are sending their suicide bombers into Iraq to mix in with the Iraqi resistance, but they know what would happen if they launched chemical weapons against Israel. It ain't a pretty picture, and I think the shock and awe of both the Israeli and U.S. would be shown in full force. If we unlease a blitzkrieg like Hitler did in WWII, the Middle East would be nothing but a parking lot.
 
Upvote 0

nvxplorer

Senior Contributor
Jun 17, 2005
10,569
451
✟28,175.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
TheBear said:
Because Syria signed an armistice agreement with Israel in 1949?
I was thinking more along the lines of supplying Hezbollah with the weapons. Granted, there is no evidence of Syrian involvement in the current activity from Lebanon, but I can expand on the speculation in the OP.
 
Upvote 0

Yusuf Evans

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2005
10,057
611
Iraq
✟13,443.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
nvxplorer said:
I was thinking more along the lines of supplying Hezbollah with the weapons. Granted, there is no evidence of Syrian involvement in the current activity from Lebanon, but I can expand on the speculation in the OP.


If they're in Iraq, they're in Lebanon.
 
Upvote 0

nvxplorer

Senior Contributor
Jun 17, 2005
10,569
451
✟28,175.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
KalEl76 said:
If they're in Iraq, they're in Lebanon.
Agreed, which is why I question why Hezbollah is launching unguided rockets without biological warheads. I also must question, if the reason for invading Iraq was based on WMD, and the weapons have been moved to Syria, why haven't we invaded Syria?
 
Upvote 0

ElvisFan42

Senior Veteran
Jul 18, 2006
2,588
175
✟26,203.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
nvxplorer said:
Agreed, which is why I question why Hezbollah is launching unguided rockets without biological warheads. I also must question, if the reason for invading Iraq was based on WMD, and the weapons have been moved to Syria, why haven't we invaded Syria?

Because the war was never about WMD's in the first place.
 
Upvote 0

Yusuf Evans

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2005
10,057
611
Iraq
✟13,443.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
nvxplorer said:
Agreed, which is why I question why Hezbollah is launching unguided rockets without biological warheads. I also must question, if the reason for invading Iraq was based on WMD, and the weapons have been moved to Syria, why haven't we invaded Syria?


The Syrians are smart enough not to do that. Only out of desperation would they do it, and with the US already in the Middle East it makes a strong deterrent. They couldn't withstand a full fledge assault from both Israel and the US.
 
Upvote 0

nvxplorer

Senior Contributor
Jun 17, 2005
10,569
451
✟28,175.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
Sleeker said:
Wrong. Because we can't feasibly attack Syria at the moment.
Why not? We have plenty of cruise missles left in our arsenal, and an entire fleet to launch them from. Occupying the country may prove difficult, but according to the administration, these WMDs represent an imminent threat. Are we somehow safer with the weapons being in Syria than we were when they were in Iraq?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yusuf Evans
Upvote 0

ElvisFan42

Senior Veteran
Jul 18, 2006
2,588
175
✟26,203.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Vylo said:
We can't feasibly attack Syria? A country with a population of 18 million? Yet we could attack Afghanistan and Iraq. Interesting.

The success we are having there makes you thing we can invade Syria? This is a new type of fight for our military, it's not one that we are world-class at, yet.
 
Upvote 0

MachZer0

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place
Mar 9, 2005
61,058
2,302
✟94,109.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
JoshuaW said:
Please tell me why Saddam would give his most deadly weapons to Syria instead of using them on the Americans. For all of the right-wing conspiracy theories about WMD trucks going to Syria, none of you can explain why Saddam would forfeit his ace card.
He was going to forfeit them one way or the other. Sending them to Syria let him with the possibility of retrieving them later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yusuf Evans
Upvote 0

Sleeker

DON'T PANIC
Jun 21, 2006
1,490
49
35
Illinois
✟24,405.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I think many of you misunderstood what I said. I meant that at this point in time, we cannot feasibly attack Syria. We still have troops in Afghanistan. Many of our troops are bogged down in Iraq. We have three possible points where the crises could flare up that may involve our forces (Iran, North Korea, and the Israel-Lebanon crisis). Any missile attack against Syria's WMD's (assuming they have them, which is not my opinion) would inevitably provoke them to use any WMD's that we missed against us. Not only would that be bad, but Iran would likely retaliate with Syria, producing another theater of conflict. Many Iraqis and Afghanis would wonder if we're merely trying to take over the entire Middle East and there would be civil unrest that may lead to rebellion. The international outcry would be terrible. The outcry here in America would be terrible.

Like I said, we cannot feasibly attack Syria at the moment, unless you're into opening Pandora's Box.
 
Upvote 0

nvxplorer

Senior Contributor
Jun 17, 2005
10,569
451
✟28,175.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
MachZer0 said:
He was going to forfeit them one way or the other. Sending them to Syria let him with the possibility of retrieving them later.
I see. Saddam is a WMD collector. He never intended on using them. He just likes having them around. What was the imminent threat again?
 
Upvote 0

nvxplorer

Senior Contributor
Jun 17, 2005
10,569
451
✟28,175.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
Sleeker said:
I think many of you misunderstood what I said. I meant that at this point in time, we cannot feasibly attack Syria. We still have troops in Afghanistan. Many of our troops are bogged down in Iraq. We have three possible points where the crises could flare up that may involve our forces (Iran, North Korea, and the Israel-Lebanon crisis). Any missile attack against Syria's WMD's (assuming they have them, which is not my opinion) would inevitably provoke them to use any WMD's that we missed against us. Not only would that be bad, but Iran would likely retaliate with Syria, producing another theater of conflict. Many Iraqis and Afghanis would wonder if we're merely trying to take over the entire Middle East and there would be civil unrest that may lead to rebellion. The international outcry would be terrible. The outcry here in America would be terrible.

Like I said, we cannot feasibly attack Syria at the moment, unless you're into opening Pandora's Box.
Sounds like an argument against invading Iraq.

We didn't mind opening up Pandora's Box with regard to Iraq, so this argument fails.
 
Upvote 0