The WMDs Are In Syria

[ONEGod]

#16
Today, 10:16 AM
JoshuaW
Regular Member
27
10:50 PM

Reputation: 457
Health: 17%
Blessings: 223
Posts: 175
Referrals: 0

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.

ONEGod:
Perhaps you haven't read of the WMD convoy that left Syria that was going to decapitate the government of Jordan and exterminate a great many people ? Why would Saddam send many of his top jet flyers to other nations during the war,nations that do not intend to return them ? DESPERATE MEASURES BY A DESPERATE MAN.

 

[variant]

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?

This has become the international WMD shell game.

I guess that every new country we invaded to find out where the WMD are, would have countries along their borders that aren't supposed to have WMD's in which we can thus claim that the WMD’s have been hidden.

That way we are NEVER wrong!

 

[variant]

Perhaps you haven't read of the WMD convoy that left Syria that was going to decapitate the government of Jordan and exterminate a great many people ? Why would Saddam send many of his top jet flyers to other nations during the war,nations that do not intend to return them ? DESPERATE MEASURES BY A DESPERATE MAN.

Unlike Jets a biological WMD can't simply be blown up on the runway by American missiles and bombs. It would also be VERY helpful if you wanted to say REPEL AN INVASION.

If the man was truly desperate, why wouldn’t he have used every means at his disposal to stay in power?

 

[Doctrine1st]

A March 2003 article, NewsMax, and Kenneth Timmerman, are there any, well, any half way objective reports out there?

I mean haven't even seen the Fox branch of the Whitehouse making these claims.

 

[MachZer0]

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?

As I'm sure you're aware, nobody claimed there was an imminent threat

 

[Sleeker]

Sounds like an argument against invading Iraq.

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

Not at all. Our previous incursion into the Middle East (Afghanistan) went over fairly well. We had little idea that such an insurgency would become so involved in Iraq.

 

[nvxplorer]

We had little idea that such an insurgency would become so involved in Iraq.

Expert testimony from high ranking officers was ignored, and as it turns out, their predictions were accurate.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Expert testimony from high ranking officers was ignored, and as it turns out, their predictions were accurate.

That's what happens when you have citizens in charge of the government who doubt the military except when it's to do their bidding. Too many troops vice the shortage would have been best for us. If that had happened, I seriously doubt Iraq would be the place it is today.

 

[Doctrine1st]

Not at all. Our previous incursion into the Middle East (Afghanistan) went over fairly well. We had little idea that such an insurgency would become so involved in Iraq.

Sleeker...

Come on man, every intelligence group and their mother predicted the insurgency problem.

Bush blew them off as "just guessing." And is currently blowing off what is now a civil war.

 

[JoshuaW]

He was going to forfeit them one way or the other. Sending them to Syria let him with the possibility of retrieving them later.

Forfeit them?? He would have used them if he had them. He didn't have them. The only WMD's Saddam ever had were the ones we gave him in the 80's which he used on the Kurds.

 

[ElvisFan42]

As I'm sure you're aware, nobody claimed there was an imminent threat

Nobody?

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

Surely, you are now aware.

 

[k]

I'm sorry, but this has been covered so many times we can almost repeat all the arguments verbatim.

Syria has long been a target of the Admin so of course the rhetoric is going to be there to support military action.

The US was bombing Iraq on a weekly basis and had 24~7 satellite coverage....if they were shipping stuff out we would have seen it and had indisputable proof.

This rhetoric will continue because it has become the policy of the US to use "WMDs" to justify invasions and murdering civillians.

 

[Vylo]

He was going to forfeit them one way or the other. Sending them to Syria let him with the possibility of retrieving them later.

How can you retrieve them later if you lose the war?

Use them later? Use them on who? The US? If he was going to do that, why wouldn't he have simply done that when we walked right into his backyard? He had every opportunity. That makes absolutely zero sense.

"Let's save our weapons so we can use them on the Americans in the future"

"By future, do you mean 15 minutes? because they are marching this way now"

 

[Verv]

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

It was partly about it; in the 2003 State Of The Union address President Bush hammered home the case against Iraq very thoroughly, but also was very certain to note other reasons for war -- primarily the fact that Hussein was the Butcher of Baghdad in a very real sense and still poses a problem to stability in the region.

 

[Verv]

How can you retrieve them later if you lose the war?

Use them later? Use them on who? The US? If he was going to do that, why wouldn't he have simply done that when we walked right into his backyard? He had every opportunity. That makes absolutely zero sense.

"Let's save our weapons so we can use them on the Americans in the future"

"By future, do you mean 15 minutes? because they are marching this way now"

They were not necessarily saved for later use by any means, but rather they were put into this position for the purpose of simply getting rid of the evidence. As I analyzed in the latter portions of the OP of the thread, the concept was to gain a political victory.

I do not suspect that any nation will want to use the weapons because it would be signing their death sentence, and I suspect the only way these weapons would be willingly used would be in a situation where individual terrorists implemented them and nobody with any real authority would be there to take the blame except for a bearded man who lives where no one can find him.

 

[ElvisFan42]

It was partly about it; in the 2003 State Of The Union address President Bush hammered home the case against Iraq very thoroughly, but also was very certain to note other reasons for war -- primarily the fact that Hussein was the Butcher of Baghdad in a very real sense and still poses a problem to stability in the region.

The war is about the geography of military dominance, that's all. Anything else is a fringe benefit. If Saddam had dropped dead in 2000, we still would have invaded.

 

[Verv]

The war is about the geography of military dominance, that's all. Anything else is a fringe benefit. If Saddam had dropped dead in 2000, we still would have invaded.

I tend to agree, but for different reasons: the Ba'athist regime would still be there, probably, and under the command of one of Hussein's silly sons.

I think that the way that the world exists, our work is never done as free people in the protection of our own freedom and for the work towards other's freedom.

There are terrorists and organizations that make it impossible to live and die free, and many groups that are constantly creating strife int heir regions and harming advancement...

I think that we do need to take action in Iraq, and we really should have done so in 1991 (except for the UN mandate did not call for that); we realloy should topple corrupt regimes (this is what makes me a neo-conservative as opposed to a conservative).

 

[ElvisFan42]

I tend to agree, but for different reasons: the Ba'athist regime would still be there, probably, and under the command of one of Hussein's silly sons.

I think that the way that the world exists, our work is never done as free people in the protection of our own freedom and for the work towards other's freedom.

I think we would have went for almost any reason. As for "our work", I think I'll stay away from that discussion right now, if you don't mind!

There are terrorists and organizations that make it impossible to live and die free, and many groups that are constantly creating strife int heir regions and harming advancement...

I think that we do need to take action in Iraq, and we really should have done so in 1991 (except for the UN mandate did not call for that); we realloy should topple corrupt regimes (this is what makes me a neo-conservative as opposed to a conservative).

I think GHW did the right thing in 1991, not because I disagree with what you say, but because this type of fighting is not something the US is familiar with, or to be frank, the best at. It's one of the reasons we had issues in Vietnam. If this were "traditional" warfare, like WW2, we'd have been out of Iraq a long time ago.

Our national security and defense policies were set a long time ago by people that came into power in 2000. They call for the US to absolutely maintian military dominance by a long lead, and geographically, we need Iraq to do that. I think the assesment of the geography is good, just not sure about the idea, and definitely not a fan of the execution.

 

[Verv]

You are right that we do poorly on guerrilla warfare -- it is because it is fundamentally asymmetrical and favors all of the vantage points that the enemy has... It is war tailored to their own needs.

They become a ghostlike entity that only engages when they see a victory (employing one of the very fundamentals of Sun Tzu, and what is often the hardest fundamental to employ).

I do not think that it is comparable to Vietnam so much. But it is going to be a challenge and we are going to have to do a better job of working hard for victory.

 

[Sleeker]

Sleeker...

Come on man, every intelligence group and their mother predicted the insurgency problem.

Look at the dates. The report was finished in October, 2003. When did we invade? March, 2003. Like I said, we didn't predict such a resilient insurgency, and maybe I should clarify, before we invaded.