Did Saddam hide WMDs in Syria?

[GabonX]

There is mounting evidence that this is the case and it's worth noting that he had over a year to do so.

There is mounting evidence that at least some of Saddam Hussein's missing weapons of mass destruction are in Syria, smuggled there by the Iraqi dictator for safekeeping before the beginning of the war. Part of the stockpile the coalition forces have so far failed to find in Iraq was probably destroyed; part is likely still hidden. But a massively lethal amount of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons is stored alongside Syria's own stockpiles of WMDs.

Perhaps more worrisome, there are indications these weapons are not under the control of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Rather, in a potentially catastrophic palace intrigue, his sister, Bushra, and her husband, Gen. Assaf Shawkat, the No. 2 in Syria's military intelligence organization, the Mukhabarat, are said to have made the storage arrangements with Saddam as part of a bid for power.

On Jan. 5, 2004, Nizar Nayouf, a Syrian journalist who recently defected to France, said in a letter to the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf that chemical and biological weapons were smuggled from Iraq into Syria before the war began, when Saddam realized he would be attacked by the U.S. Nayouf claimed to know three sites where Iraq's WMDs are kept: in tunnels under the town of al-Baida in northern Syria, part of an underground factory built by North Korea for producing a Syrian version of the Scud missile; in the village of Tal Snan, adjacent to a Syrian Air Force base; and in Sjinsjar, on the border with Lebanon.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=25309

A top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein's weapons programs before and after the 2003 liberation of Iraq, has provided the first-ever account of how Saddam Hussein "cleaned up" his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles to prevent the United States from discovering them.

"The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw told an audience Saturday at a privately sponsored "Intelligence Summit" in Alexandria, Va. (http://www.intelligencesummit.org).

"They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special forces) units out of uniform, that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence," he said.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... 3023.shtml

It's interesting that there are claims of Russian involvement. Russia has a tendency to say one thing while doing another. It is also known that Russian spies gave Saddam a detailed account of what units were going to be used in the initial invasion, but that's another story entirely.

[Serbia]

This shouldn't surprise anyone. Makes Bush look a lot less of a liar though, doesn't it people?

[Titanic]

Your still talking about WMD's. You were wrong, admit it. The politicians have come out and admitting they were wrong so just let go. If Iraq had them something would be found, you can't just destroy WMD's, its a long hard process. Your clutching on strings that arn't even there.

[daddy1gringo]

If Iraq had them something would be found, you can't just destroy WMD's, its a long hard process.

Now to be fair, he's primarily talking about moving, not destroying, them. Considering the amount of warning Saddam had, that seems feasible. What say you to that?

[demonfork]

If Iraq had them something would be found, you can't just destroy WMD's, its a long hard process.

Now to be fair, he's primarily talking about moving, not destroying, them. Considering the amount of warning Saddam had, that seems feasible. What say you to that?

Of course it's feasible. Anyone that can't accept this as a possibility is clearly under the mind control of the global elite.

[daddy1gringo]

If Iraq had them something would be found, you can't just destroy WMD's, its a long hard process.

Now to be fair, he's primarily talking about moving, not destroying, them. Considering the amount of warning Saddam had, that seems feasible. What say you to that?

Of course it's feasible. Anyone that can't accept this as a possibility is clearly under the mind control of the global elite.

This was a reasonable question.

[demonfork]

If Iraq had them something would be found, you can't just destroy WMD's, its a long hard process.

Now to be fair, he's primarily talking about moving, not destroying, them. Considering the amount of warning Saddam had, that seems feasible. What say you to that?

Of course it's feasible. Anyone that can't accept this as a possibility is clearly under the mind control of the global elite.

This was a reasonable question.

and I gave a serious answer.

[Timminz]

Anything that includes, "clearly under the mind control of the global elite" does not qualify as a serious answer to a reasonable question.

[Frigidus]

Anything that includes, "clearly under the mind control of the global elite" does not qualify as a serious answer to a reasonable question.

Fish tire banana radio boom shakalaka.

[Hologram]

Duh?

I mean, c'mon. Our people in charge knew we were going to invade Iraq, a lot longer than the public did, and Saddam wasn't stupid. He knew it was coming. Hell, Bill Clinton essentially told him in front of the world that his days were numbered. Why wouldn't he try looking for places to store is most incriminating pieces of evidence? And where else would be better than a good ally on a desert border?

[got tonkaed]

I have not seen this argued by anyone who is really that credible for what it is worth.

It also does not make a whole lot of sense if you consider some of the other things Syria had been doing for some time around the invasion of Iraq. It has been argued that instead of attempting to be confrontational with the United States, that Syria's president had been making overtures to move in a different direction entirely. I will say its telling that this is dealt with early on in the copy paste, because it would not be all that believable that the same person would be doing both of these things, especially if it was likely to come out somewhere what he was doing. Granted it does hold up as all that believable that there could be such a strong division for so long between the president and a number 2 and have any type of stability whatsoever. If such a thing was occuring there would inevitably have to be a resolution in one way or another as you cant be pursing two equally different policy outcomes at the same time with equal vigor.

Granted the oppertunity for better relations was for the most part missed, due to issues on both sides of the coin. Still, it is quite unlikely that the WMD's are there, given that Syria was trying to make its case to the US at the same time this would have had to have been happening.

Also that intelligencesummit thing probably doesnt have a bias to protect at all.

[GabonX]

Your still talking about WMD's. You were wrong, admit it. The politicians have come out and admitting they were wrong so just let go. If Iraq had them something would be found, you can't just destroy WMD's, its a long hard process. Your clutching on strings that arn't even there.

The thing is they did find WMDs in Iraq..Quite literally tons of them:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsart ... x?id=15918

In addition they also found hundreds of tons of yellow cake uranium, though MSNBC had a different story to tell. It's almost like the liberal media would knowingly and willfully tell lies outright...

So just to clear things up they did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and there is reason to think that there were many more that are now being held by Syria.

Here's an interesting article on Syria about recent diplomatic efforts made by the Obama administration.

Sleep tight everyone, we elected Obama instead of McCain. Everyone knows McCain was just a crazy old man right?

[pimpdave]

does syria have oil

[GabonX]

It also does not make a whole lot of sense if you consider some of the other things Syria had been doing for some time around the invasion of Iraq. It has been argued that instead of attempting to be confrontational with the United States, that Syria's president had been making overtures to move in a different direction entirely.

Countries have a tendency to do one thing publicly and do something else. The Russians play these kinds of games all the time and interestingly enough, it appears that they are implicated in this.

[GabonX]

does syria have oil

No

[Simon Viavant]

Your still talking about WMD's. You were wrong, admit it. The politicians have come out and admitting they were wrong so just let go. If Iraq had them something would be found, you can't just destroy WMD's, its a long hard process. Your clutching on strings that arn't even there.

The thing is they did find WMDs in Iraq..Quite literally tons of them:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsart ... x?id=15918

So we invaded Iraq...
Because they had mustard gas?

[GabonX]

Among other reasons, yes

[got tonkaed]

It also does not make a whole lot of sense if you consider some of the other things Syria had been doing for some time around the invasion of Iraq. It has been argued that instead of attempting to be confrontational with the United States, that Syria's president had been making overtures to move in a different direction entirely.

Countries have a tendency to do one thing publicly and do something else. The Russians play these kinds of games all the time and interestingly enough, it appears that they are implicated in this.

Yeah they do. It does not really mean that we need to jump from a to z however. The Russians have very different foreign policy dynamics than the Syrians do, which is why the Russians are successful at playing both sides and the Syrians have for the most part not.

Also the msnbc bit is a little off. If you wanted to cast blame you would do it at the Iraq survey group in that case.

Its difficult to really discuss foreign policy with you because you are so tied into a thought process that makes a pretty big effort to sustain itself. Its massively ideological and at the end of the day it doesnt really matter what is or isnt true as long as you can keep being a hawk.

[neanderpaul14]

does syria have oil

No

What do they use as a lubricant in there cars??

[GabonX]

It also does not make a whole lot of sense if you consider some of the other things Syria had been doing for some time around the invasion of Iraq. It has been argued that instead of attempting to be confrontational with the United States, that Syria's president had been making overtures to move in a different direction entirely.

Countries have a tendency to do one thing publicly and do something else. The Russians play these kinds of games all the time and interestingly enough, it appears that they are implicated in this.

Yeah they do. It does not really mean that we need to jump from a to z however. The Russians have very different foreign policy dynamics than the Syrians do, which is why the Russians are successful at playing both sides and the Syrians have for the most part not.

Also the msnbc bit is a little off. If you wanted to cast blame you would do it at the Iraq survey group in that case.

Its difficult to really discuss foreign policy with you because you are so tied into a thought process that makes a pretty big effort to sustain itself. Its massively ideological and at the end of the day it doesnt really matter what is or isnt true as long as you can keep being a hawk.

I search for truth, and the truth is that there were weapons and we were lied to about that.

Maybe I am a bit of a hawk, but there are reasons for that. Hawks have always decided the fate of humanity.

It would be wise for you to pay attention. While you think like Obama, I think like Putin. Love us or hate us you would be wise to pay attention..

[got tonkaed]

You are correct, it would be foolish not to see what Hawks write. You arent really searching for truth though, you are searching for whatever you can find to maintain the policy positions you want to maintain. Granted as you say there is a future in it, considering you are by no means the only one doing it.

It doesnt make any of it any better though.

[GabonX]

You are correct, it would be foolish not to see what Hawks write. You arent really searching for truth though, you are searching for whatever you can find to maintain the policy positions you want to maintain. Granted as you say there is a future in it, considering you are by no means the only one doing it.

It doesnt make any of it any better though.

This would have a lot more merit if my claims were unsubstantiated.

Perhaps you are the one that is clinging to a thought repressing ideology.

[got tonkaed]

they are only substaintaied by hawkish websites that basically are doing nothing more than what you are doing - attempting to perpetuate a set of circumstances that allows you to advocate policy positions that otherwise would not be preferred.

I have no problem cedeing a point to Hawkish sentiments, when it isnt self serving muck.

[GabonX]

I guess official military websites are hawkish by default. That doesn't change the fact that they contain some of the most relevant information...

Honestly though, I truly fear that the United States is repeating the mistakes of Britain in the 1930s. It is the result of people who are to nice, who pride themselves on being "level headed" and "rational" that allow tyrants to gain control.

As the saying goes, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing, and it seems that the majority today wishes to do nothing. This is a luxury which will not last..

[got tonkaed]

I guess official military websites are hawkish by default. That doesn't change the fact that they contain some of the most relevant information...

Honestly though, I truly fear that the United States is repeating the mistakes of Britain in the 1930s. It is the result of people who are to nice, who pride themselves on being "level headed" and "rational" that allow tyrants to gain control.

As the saying goes, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing, and it seems that the majority today wishes to do nothing. This is a luxury which will not last..

Aside from the fact that your general sources list includes nothing that would be accused of being a government source...a 2006 document (when people were willing to do just about anything to justify the war effort) thats claim was refuted by a later government document isnt quite the silver bullet you are saying it is. Trust me, I am not opposed to the notion that maybe someday when everything gets declassified somethings will turn up that will matter. Id be surprised they werent released en masse already, but that wasnt a strong point of the previous administration (and regrettably it isnt starting off all that hot for this one either).

To be fair I have never been against defense spending when it can be shown to clearly be in the national interest. I remember shortly after the attacks on september 11th, there were reports out about the lack of security in our ports and how it could be greatly improved at a pretty low one time cost (granted it was still in the billions, but thats low cost sadly by comparison). I would have absolutly no problem whatsover with that type of spending for national security. Nor do i have any problem with spending to create a more 21st century armed forces.

That doesnt mean i have to buy in at all to many of the fanicful notions and policy projections that come along with a lot of that. It is a strange world to live in, where by your logic all sheeps must be shot because they could be wolves, and all the wolves who show themselves to be wolves should be commended.