Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Assad’s fall could solve Iraqi weapons mystery
CJH    1/22/2012 9:47:00 PM

Assad’s fall could solve Iraqi weapons mystery

"Western and Israeli intelligence suspect that Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria also owns weaponized nerve agents. Spy satellites tracked a large number of truck convoys moving from Iraq to Syria in the weeks before the 2003 invasion, raising suspicions that some carried weapons of mass destruction. The invading Americans never found stocks of such weapons in Iraq, despite two years of searching by the Iraq Survey Group. The result spurred the political left to attack President Bush with slogans such as “Bush lied, troops died,” but nonpartisan national security figures said there was evidence that material may have been moved to Syria. There was just no way to get inside the Iranian-supported dictatorship to take a look. Zuhdi Jasser, a Syrian-American physician who co-founded the group Save Syria Now, is working to bring an elected secular government to Damascus. He said the Assad regime, which has used brutal repression to remain in power, can fall within a year if the popular uprising comes to the capital."

 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
Plutarch    Smitty-Response   3/12/2012 2:51:42 AM



Well, I am genuinely curious as to why this myth still persists. But thanks for your reasoned response nonetheless.


Of course they are.  The UN is known for objectivity fairness, especially when it comes to the United States.  Let's not forget that there were a number of UN resolutions that were passed leading up to the lead up to war in 2005.  The intelligence agencies of most of the countries in the UN (including the Security Council) believed the "myth" that Iraq possessed and/or was developing weapons of mass destruction. 

&O5337;&O5359;&O5365;&<2288;&O5348;&O5359;&<2288;&O5362;&O5349;&O5345;&O5356;&O5353;&O5370;&O5349;&<2288;&O5364;&O5352;&O5345;&O5364;&<2288;&O5364;&O5352;&O5349;&<2288;&O5333;&O5331;&<2288;was a major contributor to the weapons inspections teams do you not? Also I have seen this "every intelligence agency in the world believed Iraq had WMD" argument for a long time but never an actual quote from an intelligence chief stating this. Could you please quote for me three heads of non-US intelligence agencies what they said exactly about Iraq’s WMD programs and where they got their information from. Most intel was based on US intelligence which was faulty.

(FYI: the war started in 2003 and not 2005).




So Iraqi claims that it used or disposed of 100,000 chemical munitions during the war with Iran is reliable information?  We are also supposed to treat as reliable that Allied bombing destroyed and 42,000 munitions (give or take)?  Not only that, but we are to believe their claims that they destroyed another 30,000 munitions?  They only statistic there that I regard as reasonable reliable is that the UN destroyed or accounted for over 56,000 munitions.  I will certainly accept that number since I would assume the UN kept reliable records. 

 

Sure, when they provide documentary evidence as well, which they did. You do know how the weapons inspections process worked right? They were pretty intrusive and demanded evidence along the way. Also since Iraq had foreign help for its programs, some of these foreign companies were checked as well. But I am glad you at least admit that UN numbers are reliable, and will accept them.



 

 

 

 



 

 

 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch    Smitty-Part 2   3/12/2012 3:28:24 AM
Really?  And how do we know this?  Is it also possible that those shells were cached separately and set aside specifically by the regime?  Iraq was soundly defeated and driven out of Kuwait in 1991, but unlike 2003, after the war large portions of the country remained under control of Hussein's forces.  Don't you think there is probably a good reason that the Iraqis didn't allow UN access to certain facilities throughout the country?  That is one thing the WMD "deniers" (for lack of a better term) never seem to address.  Saddam Hussein could have prevented the 2005 war simply by allowing the UN inspectors unlimited access to anything they wanted to inspect, so why didn't he?  Isn't there even a shred of intellectual curiosity about that?  "Beyond the reach of the regime?"  Again, how do we know that?
So does it make sense for Iraq to destroy 56,000 shells but hide 550? Weapons inspections were snap inspections a lot of the time. Saddam would have to move shells around constantly since he could not predict when or where the inspections would take place. I would assume one or two Iraqis would have come forward in the nine years since the war ended stating their job was to move 550 shells all over Iraq in the 1990s, but so far no one has.
 
Also if you had followed the weapons inspections closely or did some research you would know that UNSCOM was given almost unfettered access for a nearly six year period. In 1998 Iraq objected to US and British inspectors going into Saddam's palaces (though not the other inspectors per se) due to assassination fears. Saddam believed that CIA/MI6 had infiltrated the inspections teams so he did not want them in his palaces. Non-US/UK inspectors may have been allowed to continue but this was unacceptable to the US so Clinton asked for UNSCOM to be removed so he could commence Operation Desert Fox against Iraq.
 
 
One can make a reasonable assertion that the weapons were beyond the reach of the regime because the regime did not use them to save itself during the invasion. If Saddam had a viable CW deterrent and thus aware of these shells existence he probably would have ordered their use once US troops reached Baghdad.
 
 
Now you're reaching.  We aren't talking about unexploded ordnance, were talking about weapons that are still capable of being used.  Unexploded ordnance would be included under the 100,000 munitions that they admit to using, wouldn't they?
 
No, the balance of all WMD munitions found in Iraq is roughly 520-525 after the WikiLeaks revelations are included. They were all determined to come from a pre-1991 stock. Mustard gas has a short shelf life and sarin has an even shorter one so the chemicals had been likely degraded to the point of being useless. Also I gave a range of options that could explain where the shells came from:  
These recovered shells could have been expended in the war (misfires or discarded), or part of the missing 550 shells, or  somehow shells that escaped destruction by UNSCOM.
 
No one is talking about a nuclear program, so let's just move past that one.  That second sentence is almost laughable.  So the Iraqis "unilaterally" destroyed all their biological weapons, but did it in such a "haphazard way" that we are unable to verify that they did so?  Do you really expect us to buy that as evidence that the Iraqis didn't have biological weapons from 1991 to 2003, and couldn't have possibly moved them to Syria?
 
Well I am glad you admit Iraq did not have a nuclear program. Some posters here would never even admit that, sorry it has been a long time so I was not sure if you were one of them or not.
 
As far as BW goes many components were dumped in the Euphrates river or burned away in 1991 so yeah it is kind of a haphazard way to dispose of. It's not like you can see bubonic plague or anthrax spores with the naked eye. Also it is very difficult to create the conditions to make BW and Iraq's BW program was never as sophisticated as its CW program.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch    Smitty-Part 3   3/12/2012 4:17:39 AM
It may be definitive to you and the other Bush haters, but none of the "evidence" you've provided has proven anything to me.  You don't even take into consideration WMDs that Iraq might have developed secretly.  During the lead up to war in 2003 the Iraqis had plenty of time to move the weapons and destroy any records that would prove those weapons existed.  Why is this so implausible? 
So now your bias is showing. I am not a "Bush hater" I even voted for him once. As for evidence there is more coming, some of it provided by the Bush Administration. 
 
In answer to your question: I believe it is implausible because first of all there were weapons inspections up until the fall of 1998 and the inspectors never uncovered anything. Secondly, even after inspectors were removed Iraq did not re-start its programs this is verified by UNSCOM reports, interviews with regime figures, scientists, and the Bush Administration authorized ISG report, all are consistent in stating Iraq had no programs after 1991.
 
Again, we are not talking about just 500 chemical shells, but other WMDs that Iraq might have possessed or were developing.  155mm shells are identifiable as munitions, but aerosol cans containg anthrax, bubonic plague, or whatever, are not.  To my knowledge no one is talking about non-HEU uranium, so I don't know where that is coming from.  I think it is safe to say anything developed as part of a clandestine program would NOT be declared by the Iraqis.  That's where the whole clandestine part comes in.
 
The uranium story came from right-wing news sources and picked up by right-wing blogs and posters who claimed it was proof of Iraqi WMD when it wasn't. I am glad you think it is a non-issue. As far as BW goes, it is a very delicate and difficult procedure to weaponize bacteria and/or viruses. It takes time, a stable laboratory, well trained microbiologists, growth media, etc. Weapons inspections were going on in the 1990s, and any scientists who had the knowledge base to work on BW were known to UNSCOM/UNMOVIC. It isn't something that could have been kept secret for very long, and Saddam at least knew that.
 
Well, for one, how about 500 or so 155mm shells loaded with chemical agents that have not been accounted for? 
 
Again this has been explained, there were 500 or so 155 mm shells found in Iraq. I don't think that is a coincidence.
 
If not that, then what about biological or chemical agents that may have been developed as part of a clandestine program and were never declared by the Iraqis? 
 
Again, it would be very difficult to keep hiding and very risky if it were uncovered. And there would be some evidence it existed like scientists who not that loyal to the regime who would be working on such a program.
 
Just for giggles I Googled "Iraqi WMDs moved to Syria", or something like that, and came up with a large number of stories from a variety of different sources that describe accounts of Iraqi weapons being transported to Syria during the lead up to war in 2003.  Some of the sources for these stories are members of Hussein's regime. 
 
Most of those stories are from the same sources, just repeated in right-wing sites. There were only two former members of the regime who talk about a weapons transfer. Neither was a member of the regime after 1991. Georges Sada wrote in his book that unnamed pilots flew an unspecified number of barrels (marked only with a skull and crossbones) to Syria six months before UNMOVIC inspections. No pilot has ever come forward to confirm this story six years now after Sada wrote it. I further doubt its veracity because I don't think Saddam had that much foresight to send weapons to Syria six months before a new UN resolution.
 
The other source is a former Fedayeen general who stated there was just a plan to move weapons to Syria in case of trouble. But that was before Syria fought against Iraq in 1991, and if it were the case why not transfer weapons in 1991 before UNSCOM inspections?
 

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch    Smitty-Cont.   3/12/2012 4:42:36 AM
I've also heard of accounts from servicemen that served in Iraq(including a US Army officer this morning) that have said that many Iraqis say openly that WMDs were moved to Syria by Hussein and his henchmen. 
 
A lot of Americans say openly that the government was behind 9/11. So are we going to treat every rumor out of Iraq as truth? How many of these Iraqis actually had first-hand knowledge of Iraq's weapons. How many of them were in the chain of command  on the weapons programs, or were given orders by Saddam. How many of them were scientists who claim to have worked on proscribed programs? To my knowledge no scientist has come forward and stated they were working on WMD programs any time after 1991.
 
It would be nice if there were written records that proved this, but one lesson that dictators learned from the Nazis is that meticulous record keeping can get you hanged if you have the poor fortune of losing the war, something I'm sure the Hussein regime knew was going to happen.  Again, the Iraqis had plenty of time to destroy such records even if they existed. 
 
There were a lot of records on Iraqi WMD by Iraq-1.6 million or so. The thing about bureaucracies is that they do produce a copious amount of paperwork. None of those documents mention a clandestine program or a weapons transfer to Syria, and I don't think Iraq was competent enough to only destroy those documents.
 
The entire point of my post is that even IF the Assad regime collapsed and evidence was uncovered that Iraqi WMDs were moved to Syria in 2003, there are elements in the Left and the media that will refuse to accept it.  It is an article of faith amongst those folks that Bush was lying about WMDs in Iraq, and nothing will ever change that.  I can be convinced that the intelligence agencies of the US, Russia, Britain, France, and Israel were mistaken about Iraq possessing WMDs.  What would it take for you to accept that Iraq did in fact possess WMDs?
 
I don't know about the media or the Left, but the Bush administration itself acknowledges that Iraq did not have WMDs. Even Bush himself admitted in his autobiography that Iraq did not have WMDs. So maybe that is what the media is basing its assumptions on, that and all the empirical evidence that points to the fact that Iraq in fact did not have WMD. At least Bush had the intellectual honesty to admit it.
 
As far as the intel agencies go: Russia, and France were not convinced that Iraq had programs, Israel has its own agenda, the UK relied on the US, and the US was lied to by Curveball. Even still not all US intel agencies agreed about Iraqi WMD, the State Department's INR dissented from the view, as well as the DOE on aluminum tubes.
 
As for me it would take something that would overwhelmingly turn over the mountain of evidence that has accumulated in the now 20+ years of weapons inspections to convince me that Iraq had a functioning, proscribed, and hidden WMD program. But that is not rumor or conjecture, maybe they went here, or there, maybe the Russians hid them, etc.
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch    Smitty-Cont. Evidence   3/12/2012 4:58:38 AM
Smitty, no offense, but I think you need to read up on this topic a bit more.
 
Here is some more evidence:
 
 
10. With respect to the munitions which existed as of January 1991, Iraq declared 127,941 filled and unfilled special munitions. These munitions have been declared by Iraq and accounted for by the Commission as follows:

a) 56,281 munitions [22,263 filled munitions and 34,018 unfilled munitions] declared by Iraq as having remained after the 1991 Gulf war:

  • 40,048 munitions were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision [these comprised 21,825 filled munitions and 18,223 unfilled munitions],

  • 16,263 munitions were not destroyed, but nevertheless accounted for by UNSCOM. These include 15,616 unfilled munitions which were converted by Iraq for conventional weapons purposes in 1993-1994. These also include 438 filled munitions destroyed, according to Iraq, during a fire accident.

The numerical discrepancy of several hundred munitions in the overall accounting can be attributed to minor deviations in the physical counting of large piles of weapons.

b) 41,998 munitions [5,498 filled munitions and 36,500 unfilled munitions] declared by Iraq as having been destroyed during the 1991 Gulf war:

  • The Commission has accepted the destruction of about 34,000 munitions on the basis of multiple sources, including physical evidence, documents provided by Iraq etc. However, it has not been possible to achieve a numerical accounting of destroyed munitions due to heavy bomb damage of the CW storage facilities, where these munitions had been stored during the Gulf war,

  • the destruction of about 2,000 unfilled munitions remain uncertain,

  • 550 filled munitions remain unaccounted for.

 

c) 29,662 munitions [854 filled munitions and 28,808 unfilled munitions] declared by Iraq as having been destroyed unilaterally:
  • the destruction of about 13,660 munitions, both filled and unfilled, has been accepted by the Commission on the basis of multiple sources, including physical evidence, documents provided by Iraq etc. However, it has not been possible to make a numerical accounting of these munitions due to destruction method used by Iraq (demolition),

  • the accounting for 15,900 unfilled munitions which, according to Iraq, had been melted, has not been possible,

  • about 100 munitions filled, according to Iraq, with BW agents remain unaccounted for

            
 (these were some of the munitions that were dumped in the Euphrates River)
 
 
h*tp://www.iraqwatch.org/un/UNSCOM/disarmament.htm
 
More here:
 
 
h*tp://www.iraqwatch.org/un/unmovic/Chapter_V.pdf
 
and here:
 
ISG’s investigation found no evidence that Iraq continued to hide BW weapons after the unilateral destruction of 1991 was complete, and ISG judges that most of the documents and materials hidden by the Special Republican Guard from 1991 until 1995 were indeed surrendered to the UN.
 
h*tps://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap6.html#sect4
 
It is pretty hard to overcome the evidence already accumulated that Iraq was disarmed after 1991.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       3/18/2012 12:28:20 PM

 
Quote    Reply

CJH       3/18/2012 12:29:14 PM
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       3/18/2012 12:35:31 PM

ISG’s investigation found no evidence that Iraq continued to hide BW weapons after the unilateral destruction of 1991 was complete, and ISG judges that most of the documents and materials hidden by the Special Republican Guard from 1991 until 1995 were indeed surrendered to the UN.
 

h*tps://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap6.html#sect4

2004 was an election year. The CIA politically skews its reports to cover itself. The CIA is the same organization which failed to tell us of the impending fall of the USSR.
 
If you want to cite reliable sources, you need to post multiple corroborative citations.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH    More Gore   3/18/2012 2:59:10 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       3/19/2012 12:28:23 AM

9 years, that's 9 years since the invasion, and four election cycles (including Congressional) that indicates that a.) Iraq had a clandestine proscribed program, or b.) It had sent any materials relating to proscribed programs to Syria.
 
You can post as many Washington Times articles you want, (which is mostly conjecture and unsubstantiated rumor) it won't change the facts on the ground. UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports are also primary sources, you can view them all at iraqwatch dot com. That is a baseline for understanding the Iraq WMD issue. In the past most posters here, including yourself, were not aware of how effective the inspections regime really was, which is why I posted those items as well as the ISG report.
 
 
Finally, if you take off your partisan lens and actually read the context of what I wrote you would realize that I am not a Democrat, I have never voted for Clinton, and actually voted for Bush. So posting videos of Clinton or Gore and their comments about WMD (I presume they are talking about WMD you are so predictable I didn't bother clicking on the videos) doesn't have any affect on me. There is a difference between Clinton's approach and Bush's though, one went to war on the faulty premise while the other merely threatened Saddam on the same faulty premise. I'll let you figure out who did what, and what it cost the country.
 
This forum has terrible software and all the interesting posters left a long time ago. Still this Iraq war propaganda needs a healthy dose of heterodoxy. If you are interested in a real debate, CJH (though I doubt it given what I've read in your posts over the years ) instead of dispensing propaganda I'm game. Otherwise when you get the urge to post some rumors on the Iraq war re-read these posts, and maybe temper your impulses a little.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics