Conquer Club

A lot of people like to refute the importance of the Weapons of Mass Destruction which were found in Iraq. While there is little evidence which indicates that Saddam had a program to create nuclear weapons after Israel destroyed his military reactor in the 80s, the finding of mustard gas and evidence that more was moved outside of the country is very relevant.

This is because Saddam's greatest atrocities were committed with mustard gas. The sanctions placed against him were not put there because he had used nuclear weapons, but rather because he had demonstrated his willingness to use WMDs against civilian populations. The vehicle he demonstrated this with was mustard gas which was found in Iraq after 2003.

It was Mustard Gas which caused sanctions to initially be placed against Saddam's regime and it was Mustard Gas which was found.

I wish more people actually cared about this.

Despite any issues that could be brought up about the Gas itself, it does not retroactively justify very much if thats where your going with this.

got tonkaed wrote:Despite any issues that could be brought up about the Gas itself, it does not retroactively justify very much if thats where your going with this.

Do you even know what mustard gas does? It sears the lungs so badly that you begin to cough up chunks of your lungs. It leaves horrible welts on your skin, it burns your eyes. In short, if you come into contact with mustard gas, you would wish you had died.

If that doesn't justify going to war I don't know what does. Look, Sadam is the only leader that has used any form of chemical warfare since WWI (there's no significant evidence to prove Japan used it proir and during WWII), he used it against his own people and the people of Iran. And if anyone doesn't believe he wouldn't have used it again, they need to wake up from their fantasy world

jsholty4690 wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:Despite any issues that could be brought up about the Gas itself, it does not retroactively justify very much if thats where your going with this.

Do you even know what mustard gas does? It sears the lungs so badly that you begin to cough up chunks of your lungs. It leaves horrible welts on your skin, it burns your eyes. In short, if you come into contact with mustard gas, you would wish you had died.

If that doesn't justify going to war I don't know what does. Look, Sadam is the only leader that has used any form of chemical warfare since WWI (there's no significant evidence to prove Japan used it proir and during WWII), he used it against his own people and the people of Iran. And if anyone doesn't believe he wouldn't have used it again, they need to wake up from their fantasy world

I am aware of what mustard gas is and its horrible impact on the body when one is attacked with it. Few people debate the starting premise "Saddam was an inhumane tyrant who did terrible things to his people." I was making a longer post about this that got eaten by the internet but why not just do it again.

There are a few clear grounds on which a regime change can be justified given what we may know about the mustard gas. Setting aside momentarily that this does not really equate to the WMD justification that was presented to the American public, despite the fact that mustard gas is terrible, none of the grounds on which it could be justifed end up standing up on balance, in my view at least.

The obvious extension of the intial premise, and one that is not universally agreed upon is that "Saddam was an inhumane tyrant who did terrible things to his people and was ready to do them to us or supply weapons to those who did as well". Given the relatively scant amount of evidence that the world has found regarding WMD's in general it is very difficult to say what Saddam was able or prepared to do. It is at this point that one enters one of the fundamental questions of the national security platform President Bush began, "What effect has your action or inaction had on national security?" Certainly the regime change has created potential national security positives for the US. It is far more difficult to ascertain if there were potential national security negatives out of the decision, but they should no be discounted. In a similar way, we should not discount what we may have gained by going in if we are to postulate the outcome of never having gone in, in the first place.

Given the difficulties in knowing what classified documents say (and the regrettably stance of both the current and previous administration about open access to information) we can at the very least look at the cost and attempt to justify the potential national security gains against them. The costs are of course staggering: incredible loss of life on both sides, a sizeable amount of resources dedicated (both now and going forward-even as we scale back) regional instability -highlighted by a rise to prominence of a potentially existential threat to our chief ally in the region, complications in an effective grand military strategy and an increase in fiscal irresponiblity, not to mention very difficult legal and moral challenges that are still unresolved.

While no one's analysis of the issue apologizes for what Saddam was, it seems clear that the potential national security gains are not justified retroactively from the costs we have incurred without disregarding what we have paid in costs or overstating the gains that are almost impossible to quanitfy. Further arguments along the lines that "Freedom is not free" not only do not advance the original argument, but should the costs truly outweigh the gains only diminsh the sacrifice of the Americans who either lost or had their lives greatly altered as a result.

There are of course other justifications that could be presented. The United States has at times and perhaps on a whole still does view itself as a beacon of values it espouses, perhaps to the level of a moral authority on some of the issues. Saddam as was mentioned previously is a terrible tyrant and did terrible things, as a result some would argue we should have done something about, despite the fact that the costs we incur may outweight personal gains to the United States.

This claim falls quite short as the United States ceded a fair amount (if not a substanial amount) of the moral authority it perhaps had established with its willingness to preemptively act in a way that bordered on unilateral action. You may argue, well if it wasnt wrong, what does it matter if international opinion was against the action? Although a fair question, it does not take into account all of the times in which the United States has failed to act against people who were just as bad if not worse. We do not have to look very long into recent history to see genocides that were regrettably worse where we did nothing. There are plenty of tyrants in the world and the US -upon realizing that transformational diplomacy by itself had not done quite what it set out to do, has not exactly taken up too many of those causes. Granted in the case of China there may be strategic reasons not to do so - but again if you are going to justify such an action based on moral necessity, costs should be considered as more important than gains.

Even when tied together these two basic justifications fall rather flat compared to their responses. I am discounting at the moment the terrible middle east policy outcome that arose out of it, though I can comment on that as well.

To make a short story long and then short again, mustard gas does not retroactively justify the choice of action, if that is where Gabon is going, at least not in my view.

jsholty4690 wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:Despite any issues that could be brought up about the Gas itself, it does not retroactively justify very much if thats where your going with this.

Do you even know what mustard gas does? It sears the lungs so badly that you begin to cough up chunks of your lungs. It leaves horrible welts on your skin, it burns your eyes. In short, if you come into contact with mustard gas, you would wish you had died.

If that doesn't justify going to war I don't know what does. Look, Sadam is the only leader that has used any form of chemical warfare since WWI (there's no significant evidence to prove Japan used it proir and during WWII), he used it against his own people and the people of Iran. And if anyone doesn't believe he wouldn't have used it again, they need to wake up from their fantasy world

Last week I talked to a businessman who went to Iraq after the Americans invaded and witnessed firsthand what Saddam's chemical weapons had done even just to the land in northern Iraq--miles and miles of ground with absolutely no life at all. Saddam Hussein deserved to be ousted, WMD or not. Although as Tonkaed said, it probably wasn't a good move for the US in the long run from an economic or diplomatic perspective.

jsholty4690 wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:Despite any issues that could be brought up about the Gas itself, it does not retroactively justify very much if thats where your going with this.

Do you even know what mustard gas does? It sears the lungs so badly that you begin to cough up chunks of your lungs. It leaves horrible welts on your skin, it burns your eyes. In short, if you come into contact with mustard gas, you would wish you had died.

If that doesn't justify going to war I don't know what does. Look, Sadam is the only leader that has used any form of chemical warfare since WWI (there's no significant evidence to prove Japan used it proir and during WWII), he used it against his own people and the people of Iran. And if anyone doesn't believe he wouldn't have used it again, they need to wake up from their fantasy world

Er, Agent Orange?

got tonkaed wrote:

jsholty4690 wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:Despite any issues that could be brought up about the Gas itself, it does not retroactively justify very much if thats where your going with this.

Do you even know what mustard gas does? It sears the lungs so badly that you begin to cough up chunks of your lungs. It leaves horrible welts on your skin, it burns your eyes. In short, if you come into contact with mustard gas, you would wish you had died.

If that doesn't justify going to war I don't know what does. Look, Sadam is the only leader that has used any form of chemical warfare since WWI (there's no significant evidence to prove Japan used it proir and during WWII), he used it against his own people and the people of Iran. And if anyone doesn't believe he wouldn't have used it again, they need to wake up from their fantasy world

I am aware of what mustard gas is and its horrible impact on the body when one is attacked with it. Few people debate the starting premise "Saddam was an inhumane tyrant who did terrible things to his people." I was making a longer post about this that got eaten by the internet but why not just do it again.

There are a few clear grounds on which a regime change can be justified given what we may know about the mustard gas. Setting aside momentarily that this does not really equate to the WMD justification that was presented to the American public, despite the fact that mustard gas is terrible, none of the grounds on which it could be justifed end up standing up on balance, in my view at least.

The obvious extension of the intial premise, and one that is not universally agreed upon is that "Saddam was an inhumane tyrant who did terrible things to his people and was ready to do them to us or supply weapons to those who did as well". Given the relatively scant amount of evidence that the world has found regarding WMD's in general it is very difficult to say what Saddam was able or prepared to do. It is at this point that one enters one of the fundamental questions of the national security platform President Bush began, "What effect has your action or inaction had on national security?" Certainly the regime change has created potential national security positives for the US. It is far more difficult to ascertain if there were potential national security negatives out of the decision, but they should no be discounted. In a similar way, we should not discount what we may have gained by going in if we are to postulate the outcome of never having gone in, in the first place.

Given the difficulties in knowing what classified documents say (and the regrettably stance of both the current and previous administration about open access to information) we can at the very least look at the cost and attempt to justify the potential national security gains against them. The costs are of course staggering: incredible loss of life on both sides, a sizeable amount of resources dedicated (both now and going forward-even as we scale back) regional instability -highlighted by a rise to prominence of a potentially existential threat to our chief ally in the region, complications in an effective grand military strategy and an increase in fiscal irresponiblity, not to mention very difficult legal and moral challenges that are still unresolved.

While no one's analysis of the issue apologizes for what Saddam was, it seems clear that the potential national security gains are not justified retroactively from the costs we have incurred without disregarding what we have paid in costs or overstating the gains that are almost impossible to quanitfy. Further arguments along the lines that "Freedom is not free" not only do not advance the original argument, but should the costs truly outweigh the gains only diminsh the sacrifice of the Americans who either lost or had their lives greatly altered as a result.

There are of course other justifications that could be presented. The United States has at times and perhaps on a whole still does view itself as a beacon of values it espouses, perhaps to the level of a moral authority on some of the issues. Saddam as was mentioned previously is a terrible tyrant and did terrible things, as a result some would argue we should have done something about, despite the fact that the costs we incur may outweight personal gains to the United States.

This claim falls quite short as the United States ceded a fair amount (if not a substanial amount) of the moral authority it perhaps had established with its willingness to preemptively act in a way that bordered on unilateral action. You may argue, well if it wasnt wrong, what does it matter if international opinion was against the action? Although a fair question, it does not take into account all of the times in which the United States has failed to act against people who were just as bad if not worse. We do not have to look very long into recent history to see genocides that were regrettably worse where we did nothing. There are plenty of tyrants in the world and the US -upon realizing that transformational diplomacy by itself had not done quite what it set out to do, has not exactly taken up too many of those causes. Granted in the case of China there may be strategic reasons not to do so - but again if you are going to justify such an action based on moral necessity, costs should be considered as more important than gains.

Even when tied together these two basic justifications fall rather flat compared to their responses. I am discounting at the moment the terrible middle east policy outcome that arose out of it, though I can comment on that as well.

To make a short story long and then short again, mustard gas does not retroactively justify the choice of action, if that is where Gabon is going, at least not in my view.

We can argue about whether or not the Iraq war was the right thing to do elsewhere. Frankly it's unlikely that we're ever going to see eye to eye on that issue.

What this thread addresses is the reaction that some people have to the fact (and it is not credibly disputed at this point) that Saddam had WMDs. The reaction that many people have when faced with this fact is that mustard gas is insignifigant. This thread disputes this as the definition of a "weapon of mass destruction" has always included chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

Saddam's worst crimes were commited with mustard gas (which is a chemical weapon) which was used by his regime to kill or disfigure entire towns of people. He used mustard gas for mass destruction of human life, and it was mustard gas which he was found with.

As a side note, it should be deeply disturbing how little people know that WMDs were found in Iraq in large quantities. Many people only pay attention to press sources which affirm their belief systems and I truly believe that most (not all) people on these forums found out about these facts from myself.

Too many people only watch Fox or only watch MSNBC etc. It is impossible to have a well informed position if you do not pay direct attention (direct as in unfiltered, ie you actually actually watch fox and msnbc instead of one's interpretation or presentation of the other) to opposing interest groups.

Skittles! wrote:

jsholty4690 wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:Despite any issues that could be brought up about the Gas itself, it does not retroactively justify very much if thats where your going with this.

Do you even know what mustard gas does? It sears the lungs so badly that you begin to cough up chunks of your lungs. It leaves horrible welts on your skin, it burns your eyes. In short, if you come into contact with mustard gas, you would wish you had died.

If that doesn't justify going to war I don't know what does. Look, Sadam is the only leader that has used any form of chemical warfare since WWI (there's no significant evidence to prove Japan used it proir and during WWII), he used it against his own people and the people of Iran. And if anyone doesn't believe he wouldn't have used it again, they need to wake up from their fantasy world

Er, Agent Orange?

Agent Orange was used for defoliage, not as a weapon.

Still, the claim is somewhat innacurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_w ... rwar_years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_w ... rld_War_II

There's more if you keep reading. I'm not sure that anyone used it to the same extent as Saddam.

GabonX wrote:A lot of people like to refute the importance of the Weapons of Mass Destruction which were found in Iraq. While there is little evidence which indicates that Saddam had a program to create nuclear weapons after Israel destroyed his military reactor in the 80s, the finding of mustard gas and evidence that more was moved outside of the country is very relevant.

This is because Saddam's greatest atrocities were committed with mustard gas. The sanctions placed against him were not put there because he had used nuclear weapons, but rather because he had demonstrated his willingness to use WMDs against civilian populations. The vehicle he demonstrated this with was mustard gas which was found in Iraq after 2003.

It was Mustard Gas which caused sanctions to initially be placed against Saddam's regime and it was Mustard Gas which was found.

So presumably the States will attack any country that has used mustard gas on people?

GabonX wrote:A lot of people like to refute the importance of the Weapons of Mass Destruction which were found in Iraq. While there is little evidence which indicates that Saddam had a program to create nuclear weapons after Israel destroyed his military reactor in the 80s, the finding of mustard gas and evidence that more was moved outside of the country is very relevant.

This is because Saddam's greatest atrocities were committed with mustard gas. The sanctions placed against him were not put there because he had used nuclear weapons, but rather because he had demonstrated his willingness to use WMDs against civilian populations. The vehicle he demonstrated this with was mustard gas which was found in Iraq after 2003.

It was Mustard Gas which caused sanctions to initially be placed against Saddam's regime and it was Mustard Gas which was found.

Almost nothing in the above post is true. It contains blatant falsehoods and random speculation.

Rustovitch wrote:

GabonX wrote:A lot of people like to refute the importance of the Weapons of Mass Destruction which were found in Iraq. While there is little evidence which indicates that Saddam had a program to create nuclear weapons after Israel destroyed his military reactor in the 80s, the finding of mustard gas and evidence that more was moved outside of the country is very relevant.

This is because Saddam's greatest atrocities were committed with mustard gas. The sanctions placed against him were not put there because he had used nuclear weapons, but rather because he had demonstrated his willingness to use WMDs against civilian populations. The vehicle he demonstrated this with was mustard gas which was found in Iraq after 2003.

It was Mustard Gas which caused sanctions to initially be placed against Saddam's regime and it was Mustard Gas which was found.

Almost nothing in the above post is true. It contains blatant falsehoods and random speculation.

Like what?

Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about and if you want to make claims you need to be specific to be credible.

It's sad that so many people's ideology blocks out the facts.

GabonX wrote:

Rustovitch wrote:

GabonX wrote:A lot of people like to refute the importance of the Weapons of Mass Destruction which were found in Iraq. While there is little evidence which indicates that Saddam had a program to create nuclear weapons after Israel destroyed his military reactor in the 80s, the finding of mustard gas and evidence that more was moved outside of the country is very relevant.

This is because Saddam's greatest atrocities were committed with mustard gas. The sanctions placed against him were not put there because he had used nuclear weapons, but rather because he had demonstrated his willingness to use WMDs against civilian populations. The vehicle he demonstrated this with was mustard gas which was found in Iraq after 2003.

It was Mustard Gas which caused sanctions to initially be placed against Saddam's regime and it was Mustard Gas which was found.

Almost nothing in the above post is true. It contains blatant falsehoods and random speculation.

Like what?

Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about and if you want to make claims you need to be specific to be credible.

It's sad that so many people's ideology blocks out the facts.

Yes because that really is my problem!
You are denying reality like King Canute denied the tide.

Iraq had no WMD's.
The weapons inspectors said that Iraq had no WMD's.
The USA refused to allow them to their job and confirm this to the world.
The WMD's that 'we' claimed Saddam still held were variously claimed to be... buried deep underground, ready to hit london in 45 minutes, smuggled to syria, smuggled to Iran etc etc... which one was it?
When all but the most rabid neo-con had to concede the issue of WMD's it became about the war on terror, yes thats right folks... we destroyed a secular state that was enemies with al-qaeda in order to make the world safer from Islamic terrorism!
Then it became about democracy! Yet who vetoed the election results to prevent complete dominance by the shia?

Sigh...

First off, I didn't want to go into Iraq in the first place, so let's get that out of the way off the bat.

Regardless of whether the existence of weapons of mass destruction was justification for going to war, the United States found weapons of mass destruction. This is not a debatable issue.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsart ... x?id=15918

I can understand how someone could say (or type) that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, especially considering that it was widely reported that there were none, and the above report was not widely reported on. I have my theories on why this was the case, but that's for another thread.

Thanks Greek. Unfortunately your link got cut off. Here is the real one:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsart ... x?id=15918

The real issue here is that people have been misled and lied to and that many people choose this path as it affirms their world view.

At this point there is no question that contraband WMDs were found in Iraq and there is reason to believe that many more were shipped outside of the country but that’s a whole other story.

The real issue here is that it is a FACT that hundreds of tons of WMDs were indeed found in Iraq. Despite this, the media still openly proclaims that none were found and this should be deeply concerning to all.

We deserve the whole truth.

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006

Fail.

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

Double fail.

To clarify, a statment by the aggressive power, showing what amounts to archeological evidence of a past WMD deterrent is hardly evidence that Saddam had WMD in any credible way.

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

But they could still be used. Look at what he said "they couldn't currently be used as originally intended," he didn't say they weren't dangerous, or that the gas wasn't viable as a weapon anymore, he said that in their current state they couldn't do what they were intended to do. i.e. be loaded into artillery pieces and fired at civilian or military targets. WMDs are called Weapons of Mass Destruction for a reason.

While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.

By the way my quote was one paragraph below yours. Try not to take things out of context.

jsholty4690 wrote:

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

But they could still be used. Look at what he said "they couldn't currently be used as originally intended," he didn't say they weren't dangerous, or that the gas wasn't viable as a weapon anymore, he said that in their current state they couldn't do what they were intended to do. i.e. be loaded into artillery pieces and fired at civilian or military targets. WMDs are called Weapons of Mass Destruction for a reason.

While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.

By the way my quote was one paragraph below yours. Try not to take things out of context.

I did not take anything out of context.
Saddam disarmed, we know this. The weapons inspectors told us this, our experiences during this war have proved this.

The above, which comes from a source of zero credibility shows that this disarnament process MAY have been sloppy. A problem that may have been resolved if the weapons inspectors were allowed (by the USA) to have completed their mission.

This 'evidence' amounts to acheological remnants.

Rustovitch wrote:

jsholty4690 wrote:

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

But they could still be used. Look at what he said "they couldn't currently be used as originally intended," he didn't say they weren't dangerous, or that the gas wasn't viable as a weapon anymore, he said that in their current state they couldn't do what they were intended to do. i.e. be loaded into artillery pieces and fired at civilian or military targets. WMDs are called Weapons of Mass Destruction for a reason.

While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.

By the way my quote was one paragraph below yours. Try not to take things out of context.

I did not take anything out of context.
Saddam disarmed, we know this. The weapons inspectors told us this, our experiences during this war have proved this.

One, you did take it out of context, you made it sound like Chu said the weapons were no threat, when he really said that they were a threat. Two if Saddam gave up all of his weapons, where did these come from? And is it possible that he hid other Mustard and Sarin gas containers in the desert? You don't just burry weaponized chemical weapons just for the heck of it, he was hiding them.

The above, which comes from a source of zero credibility shows that this disarnament process MAY have been sloppy. A problem that may have been resolved if the weapons inspectors were allowed (by the USA) to have completed their mission.

This 'evidence' amounts to acheological remnants.

Yeah, why should we ever trust the U.S. military, their just protecting West from Islamic extremists

May have been sloppy??? If there was one or two canisters they missed that may have been sloppy, but this was an assload of chemical weapons they missed.

Do you know what happened? Saddam kicked them out. The U.S. warned him if they didn't let them in they would invade. FYI the weapon inspectors had over ten years to find this stock pile, guess what, they didn't find it. Hey, if you think that a world with Saddam with Mustard and Sarin gas is a safer place, you can have it, I'm fine with the world we have right now.

Finally, archeological evidence is arrow heads and ancient Greek coins, not weaponized Sarin nerve gas or Mustard gas. The latter is evidence of war crimes.

One, you did take it out of context, you made it sound like Chu said the weapons were no threat, when he really said that they were a threat.

No he said that they may be a threat.

Two if Saddam gave up all of his weapons, where did these come from? And is it possible that he hid other Mustard and Sarin gas containers in the desert? You don't just burry weaponized chemical weapons just for the heck of it, he was hiding them.

The first sentence has already been addressed. Secondly we only have speculation, were they buried as part of a disarnament process? Were they on a list of sites to be visited by the weapons inspectors? Were they 'lost' in a previous conflict.

Yeah, why should we ever trust the U.S. military, their just protecting West from Islamic extremists

Iraq was a secular state, the war on Iraq was nothing about protecting the west from Islamic extremists. Indeed by removing Saddam one of Al-Qaeda's objectives have been met.

Do you know what happened? Saddam kicked them out. The U.S. warned him if they didn't let them in they would invade.

No that is not what happened. Saddam raised objections to CIA agents who were part of the inspection teams acting outside their remit. The USA threw a tantrum and the bombs fell.

FYI the weapon inspectors had over ten years to find this stock pile, guess what, they didn't find it.

No they did not have ten years, and there was no stockpile.

Hey, if you think that a world with Saddam with Mustard and Sarin gas is a safer place, you can have it, I'm fine with the world we have right now.

No, but a still living Saddam without Mustard and Sarin gas would have been safer than this one.

It's clear that Rustovitch has his mind made up and that he is not looking for facts. A person can skim any article for a single line that affirms their world view. Another tactic is to openly refute information which does not sync with their world view.
Rustovitch has seemingly done both in this case

It's irrefutable that Saddam had WMDs. In addition to what we know was there, there are multiple sources (in the following there is testimony from and Iraqi general, a Pentagon intelligence official, and a Syrian journalist) which state that more weapons were shipped (with the assistance of the Russians) into Syria:

An Iraqi General has went on the record saying that the bulk of Saddam's WMDs were shipped to Syria.

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.

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/

Pentagon officials who monitored the efforts also support these claims.

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)

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml

To top it off we have reports from a Syrian journalist.

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.

Perhaps most worrisome about this account...

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.

In history, when we have three unrelated sources (that is to say three sources which have not based their information off of each other) which all indicate that the same thing happened, this is considered a verified fact. We have an Iraqi general, a Pentagon intelligence official, and a Syrian journalist who all state that the same thing happened. This makes the claim that a large number of WMDs were shipped from Iraq into Syria highly verified.

The knowledge we have of the weapons which were found along with the knowledge of what was moved coupled with the poor record keeping of the regime cause me to believe that he had so many WMDs that he didn't even know where they all were. Frankly it's just silly to think that Saddam had turned over a new leaf even without all of this information.

As a side note, the idea that we're going to discount US intelligence means that essentially all information we have about the war is invalid. If the US wanted to enact a conspiracy, they could have placed much better weapons than old mustard gas containers...

GabonX wrote:It's clear that Rustovitch has his mind made up and that he is not looking for facts. A person can skim any article for a single line that affirms their world view. Another tactic is to openly refute information which does not sync with their world view.
Rustovitch has seemingly done both in this case

Yes because offering independent expert testimony consistent with reality is obviously just me burying my head in the sand.
Now I have not simply skimmed, I have quoted. You can't attack someone for quoting. And you can't accept me to blindly accept official US statements on the matter. As the aggressive, occupying power with a proven history of deceit (slice of nigerian yellow cake anyone) I can not give any credence to official US sources.

It's irrefutable that Saddam had WMDs.

Had, yes he had them, the only problem he had them several years before we invaded.

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.

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/

Who was not on active service at the time, was not even on speaking terms with Saddam from 1991 onwards and in any case is a quisling. Not a reliable source, he appears to be part of a big club of dissenters who fell out with Saddam and have been forging secrets to sell to a gullible west ever since.

Pentagon officials who monitored the efforts also support these claims.
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.

Again the Pentagon is hardly a valid source.

On Jan. 5, 2004, Nizar Nayouf, a Syrian journalist who recently defected to France,

So he is a journalist so likely wont know much, with an anti-baathist political agenda.

In history, when we have three unrelated sources (that is to say three sources which have not based their information off of each other) which all indicate that the same thing happened, this is considered a verified fact. We have an Iraqi general, a Pentagon intelligence official, and a Syrian journalist who all state that the same thing happened. This makes the claim that a large number of WMDs were shipped from Iraq into Syria highly verified.

Those are three, highly dubious sources with overlapping political agendas.

As a side note, the idea that we're going to discount US intelligence means that essentially all information we have about the war is invalid. If the US wanted to enact a conspiracy, they could have placed much better weapons than old mustard gas containers...

They don't really need, which is why we have this half-arsed attempt.

Anyway, you have your views I have mine. I don't think either of us will shift.