Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says


aREDSKIN

Recommended Posts

And who didn't realize this??? Well you know who your are.

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration's decision to go to war in 2003. And President Bush himself has conceded much of the point; in a televised prime-time address to Americans last month, he said, "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."

Continued..................

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514?page_no=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I believe 80% of the world believed this... and 40% still do...

And as stated before, as time goes on and more comes out the better it will get for all.

There are those that will never believe, but we've never landed on the moon either....

(shhhhh]: they helped terrorists also [/shhhhh]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as much as I want to believe this guy, theres just something uncredible about someone who takes this long to tell us this.

another thing I disagree with this article about is that it says this will alter the political debate over the iraq war, and I dont think it will change the lefts stance on the war. Many of the leftists(and isolationist and pacifists) complain that saddam was no threat with or without wmd's, that he was contained and was passive, and that there was nothing to gain from the conflict only to lose.

So it really doesnt matter if its true that they sent their wmd's to syria, other than put syria in the sights. Your still gonna hear illegal war, Bush lied(maybe they will focus more on saddams threat than wmd's but thats it), and it wasnt worth it. Im wondering, if this is true, if these generals were expecting monetary compensation from hassad for the delivery, and were had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this leftist asks a slightly different question.

I was okay for going in after WMD that Bush said were there. That's all fine and dandy, but with that as our goal, does the fact that we came away with empty hands change one's perception of whether or not the war was a "success?" In specific, I question the "mission accomplished" attitude that we had (wonder where we got that impression). We have since redefined our reasons for being there to another goal that is still possibly doable, though planning for the aftermath was a question I brought up on this board before we went into the war.

So if the imminent threat was a problem worth spending billions of dollars, a thousand American lives, and thousands of Iraqi lives to combat it, are we better off now with the WMD spread like the wind in Syria as apposed to in Sadam's hands where they were? With all of the talk of the insurgency being made in large part of people coming in through Syria, do we have any real reason to believe the WMD ended up in the hands of people that wish us any better fortune than Sadam did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, my fear was that the weapons would be placed in the control of someone who was a greater danger. Thankfully, if this is true (and I do believe they were secreted away) they have not been used yet. Terrorist groups may or may not now be in control of them and if they're not and if they are that means we are so much less safe than when Sadam controlled them. Syria, I believe, is and was more hostile to the US and more pro terrorist than Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And who didn't realize this??? Well you know who your are.

Okay, so now people believe Saddam's second in command - which card was this guy? And it's in his book? Is it that he's become a greedy capitalist that makes him believable?

But a different officer in the same army is murdered during torture and it's fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why has the current administration not said this? It would be a victory of sort for the Bush administration if the WMD were to be found to be in Syria. Yet for years these types of stories have surfaced yet the GOP continues to speak and act as if there was in fact no WMD to be found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this leftist asks a slightly different question.

I was okay for going in after WMD that Bush said were there. That's all fine and dandy, but with that as our goal, does the fact that we came away with empty hands change one's perception of whether or not the war was a "success?" In specific, I question the "mission accomplished" attitude that we had (wonder where we got that impression). We have since redefined our reasons for being there to another goal that is still possibly doable, though planning for the aftermath was a question I brought up on this board before we went into the war.

So if the imminent threat was a problem worth spending billions of dollars, a thousand American lives, and thousands of Iraqi lives to combat it, are we better off now with the WMD spread like the wind in Syria as apposed to in Sadam's hands where they were? With all of the talk of the insurgency being made in large part of people coming in through Syria, do we have any real reason to believe the WMD ended up in the hands of people that wish us any better fortune than Sadam did?

Here's the thing. People have been talking about the WMDs going to Syria before the report that there were no WMDs in Iraq. I know that my wife and I talked about that numerous times. But since we went in to Iraq to do 2 things 1.) remove WMDs (that was pretty easy) and 2.) remove Saddam. Still pretty easy. After we removed Saddam we decided to stay and help form a new government so that the same people couldn't take over again. It has been rough that US soldiers have died. But if you compare it to the amount that died in any of the Wars that we have engaged in before, minus Persian gulf we are very much on the low end of the fatality spectrum. War and liberation comes at a price. No one and I mean NO ONE thought that the insurgency would be so strong. If you will notice most of the lives have been lost in the guerrilla warfare of the insurgency, and mostly from cowardly suicide bombs, not small arms fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why has the current administration not said this? It would be a victory of sort for the Bush administration if the WMD were to be found to be in Syria. Yet for years these types of stories have surfaced yet the GOP continues to speak and act as if there was in fact no WMD to be found.

Because there is no way that we are going into Syria right now, and the UN has not been exactly helpful in anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because there is no way that we are going into Syria right now, and the UN has not been exactly helpful in anyway
So the US that has spy sats, drones, and a massive air force......failed to notice a massive convoy of WMD loaded trucks exiting Iraq as our forces were building up along thier border? I'm sorry but I'm going to need some real evidence. It's not that I don't think it could happen, it's just that I feel I've already played this particular game. Fool me once....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike the Leftist mentality that it is better to clear your name and look good for the people than to do the right and safest thing, the Bush Admin. (as was stated on this board by another poster claiming to have inside information a while back) would have an easier time tracking down the WMD if noone knew they were looking for them. All them coming forward with this info would do is spark more contemptment on the left, give the people who now have the weapons a heads up that we are going to be looking in their neighborhood, and cause more liberals to accuse the Admin. of lying to protect themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike the Leftist mentality that it is better to clear your name and look good for the people than to do the right and safest thing, the Bush Admin. (as was stated on this board by another poster claiming to have inside information a while back) would have an easier time tracking down the WMD if noone knew they were looking for them. All them coming forward with this info would do is spark more contemptment on the left, give the people who now have the weapons a heads up that we are going to be looking in their neighborhood, and cause more liberals to accuse the Admin. of lying to protect themselves.

This would have been the perfect post if it had been just 1 sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the US that has spy sats, drones, and a massive air force......failed to notice a massive convoy of WMD loaded trucks exiting Iraq as our forces were building up along thier border? I'm sorry but I'm going to need some real evidence. It's not that I don't think it could happen, it's just that I feel I've already played this particular game. Fool me once....

The article states that they used gutted commercial airliners to move the WMD's, not trucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gchwood,

you say removing thewmd was easy? Would you count what happened to the WMD as a success then (assuming what he said is true and they moved them to Syria)?

To be honest, this appears to be one of those senarios that is worse than having been wrong about their existance in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I see with the people who bear conscientious objector type behavior is they dont care that Iraq had Weapons of Mass destruction at one time or the fact that Iraq could not show where they have destroyed the weapons and now we hear this crap.

I wonder what all the objectors will say now??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gchwood,

you say removing thewmd was easy? Would you count what happened to the WMD as a success then (assuming what he said is true and they moved them to Syria)?

To be honest, this appears to be one of those senarios that is worse than having been wrong about their existance in the first place.

It was easy to remove them since they removed them themselves.

No, I don't think it is any better to have them in the hands of Syria. That government should be classified as a terrorist organization in and of itself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The facts are that there was no WMD. How they got out of teh country or if the went to Syria is irrellevant. I still don't understand why if Sadaam was such a threat personally we didn't just conduct a black opts, assassinate the guy, and put in puppet government in the first place. I know Bush would not have had the oppurtunity to wear that sexy jump suit, but it would have spared a few thousand lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm amazed that some people on this board think that having tons of WMD's in Syria is a victory and a good thing for the US. Really astounded.
I'm surprised people are assuming there actually were weapons and that they are in Syria. We've been down this "we know there are weapons" road before. Maybe this time we should stop counting eggs as chickens.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The facts are that there was no WMD. How they got out of teh country or if the went to Syria is irrellevant. I still don't understand why if Sadaam was such a threat personally we didn't just conduct a black opts, assassinate the guy, and put in puppet government in the first place. I know Bush would not have had the oppurtunity to wear that sexy jump suit, but it would have spared a few thousand lives.

Assassinate Saddam and guess who takes over? Your pick Uday or Qusay...and you thought Saddam was bad, his sons make him look like a kindly old man.

The message, symbolism, and meaning of the US going to war is to tell that region that if you harbor wmd's and show a willingness to use them, we will come after you and remove you from power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The facts are that there was no WMD. How they got out of teh country or if the went to Syria is irrellevant. I still don't understand why if Sadaam was such a threat personally we didn't just conduct a black opts, assassinate the guy, and put in puppet government in the first place. I know Bush would not have had the oppurtunity to wear that sexy jump suit, but it would have spared a few thousand lives.

You know that we can't assasinate foriegn leaders according to foriegn policy and the geneva convention

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...