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 Part 4   4/24/2012 10:00:11 AM

As the Bush Administration made its case it became apparent to me that Iraq seemed to be doing everything in its power to impede the UN inspections, which didn’t seem to make a hell of a lot of sense.

 

So you bought into the propaganda. You should be outraged at how misled you were.

 

 Iraq found itself in this position, but instead of cooperating the Iraqis continued to refuse to allow UN inspectors access to key facilities and continued to harass UN inspectors. To claim now that the Iraqis were cooperating fully is a misrepresentation of the facts.

 

Repeating fabrications does not make them true. UNMOVIC documented every single day that they worked in Iraq, I have already linked to their daily briefings, not once were inspectors denied access by Iraqi officials.

 

Once the war began I expected troops to come across vast stockpiles of WMDs. George Tenet had told the President it was a “slam dunk”, so like pretty much everyone else I took him at his word. Like many Americans I was disappointed that American GIs were not uncovering these stockpiles, but after Baghdad fell and the search for WMDs continued I began to notice something…. Occasionally troops or inspectors would come across suspected WMD weapons or labs, but before the evidence had even been examined these discoveries were reported on the news and were almost instantly followed up by so-called “experts” that would claim that the weapons or labs were not related to any Iraqi WMD program. Huh? In fact, it occurred to me that there were a lot of people that seemed to be rooting against the US finding evidence of WMDs in Iraq, so much so that whenever possible evidence was uncovered they seemed to go out of their way to discredit it. I suspect it has a lot to do with Bush Derangement Syndrome, but for these folks an article of faith was born.

 

Smitty it had to do with what was already known to have existed in Iraq prior to 1991. As I stated before both the IAEA and UNSCOM left pre-1991 components in Iraq.Also some of these reports turned out to be false.

 

To say that there is absolutely no evidence that WMDs were moved out of Iraq in the months leading up to war is simply not true. If want to say that there is no reliable evidence or confirmed evidence, then fine. I’ve done a lot of research over the last week, and was able to come across a number of reports and accounts of WMDs being moved out of Iraq, including some that listed specific amounts of material that were removed from the country, and specific locations where materials were hidden in places such as Syria and the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. Some accounts even allege that the Russians brought in special forces troops to help move the material and destroy documents related to the Iraqi WMD program. All that information is out there. Is every single one of those stories a complete lie?

 

Most of it is based on misinformation or incomplete information. John Shaw was a big proponent of the Russian Spetznaz helping Iraq theory. He was forced to resign from the Pentagon. No one else can verify his claim.

 

 

I suppose it’s possible, but isn’t it also possible that the Iraqis (with outside help) were able to move the remnants of their WMD program out of the country and destroy most, if not all, of the documents related to the program?  Otherwise intelligent people like John Bolton and David Kay had reason to believe that some WMD components were moved to Syria shortly before war. Are we to believe that they are ideologues and idiots as well, especially considering they probably had access to information that we do not?

 

John Bolton is an ideologue. David Kay was merely speculating, he also had to resign from the ISG because he was wrong about Iraq’s WMDs.

 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch    Smitty Part 5   4/24/2012 10:00:21 AM

You claim that the people that advance the theories that Iraq had WMDs do so based upon conjecture, but when I researched some of the small caches of chemical weapons and suspected WMD labs that were reportedly found by troops I found that the methodology used to minimize the significance of these finds was also based largely on conjecture. In 2004 insurgents tried to use a sarin-filled artillery shell as an IED, but it was detected by US troops. It exploded before it could be rendered inoperable, but exposure was limited. Critics claimed that the insurgents probably didn’t know the shell had chemicals in it, and even if they did it was more than likely a pre-1991 shell and therefore not part of an active WMD program. Several caches of chemical artillery shells were periodically uncovered, but according to the “experts” those were old shells that had probably been stored there and forgotten (Really? And we just somehow “found” them?).

 

Yes, as per the UN Resolution Iraq did not have to have all WMDs 100% removed from its territory. Both the IAEA and UNSCOM left some weapons behind, others were mixed in with conventional weapons accidently or were part of the 500 or so shells that Iraq lost. But it was not Iraq's intent to hide weapons or continue weapons programs. How do I know this? The ISG report.

 

 Troops also came across suspected labs and stores of chemicals, some hidden in camouflaged bunkers. In some cases those chemicals tested positive in field tests for nerve agents, and there are even reports that troops and civilians suffered ill effects after being exposed to those chemicals. These incidents were dismissed or explained away. Critics claimed that the field tests were grossly inaccurate (why wasn’t this a scandal?), and any chemicals were either classified as pesticides (which obviously should be kept in camouflaged bunkers) or dismissed as harmless. As far as exposure goes, the victims were treated but the symptoms were explained away or dismissed as psychosomatic.

 

Field tests were inaccurate; this was all over the news eight years ago. As for the chemicals they were mostly determined to be either false reports or dual-use. Iraq had a right to use chemicals for civilian purposes, including pesticides (e.g. the Fertile Crescent).

 

You claim that you would only accept tangible evidence, stuff you can see and touch, but really, Plutarch, how much of this evidence have you touched and held? Like nearly all of us I’m sure you are getting most of your information from the internet.

 

Empirical evidence does not mean I have to be there and actually see events. I was never in England in 1066 but I have a good idea of what happened then. All of my information comes from pre-war and post-war UN or post-war US Government reports, because they are the ones who through interviews, document analysis, and on-site inspections have knowledge of Iraq’s weapons programs, and what became of the WMDs.

 

I would dare say that when you do your research you are predisposed to give greater credence to sites that support your point of view while casting a critical eye towards sites that don’t.

 

I try to only use primary sources so it does not matter what sites host them, what matters is what the reports themselves say.

 

This is human nature, but I would encourage you to maybe do a little research on the subject with a more open mind. It may be an informational exercise to try to approach the subject from the point of view of someone that is trying provide evidence that Iraq did indeed still have remnants of an existing WMD program. If this exercise seems completely unreasonable to you, then I have to question your objectivity on the subject.

 

Until you demonstrate even a modicum of understanding on this issue you should probably not comment on my research ability. Iraqwatch is hardly partisan it is mainly now a depository of primary source documents. You do know what primary sources are right?

 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch    Smitty Part 6   4/24/2012 10:00:30 AM

I will throw you a bone now. There is substantial evidence that there were no large stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq in the Spring of 2003

 

Welcome to 2004! Please tell me next that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

 

 but I feel that there until there is a vetting of ALL the facts it is premature to conclude once and for all that Iraq had no WMD program after 1991.

 

Tell that to the Bush Administration, and the UN, and the 1000 Iraqi chemists and scientists who worked on Iraq’s WMD program prior to 1991. All will state that Iraq did not have weapons after 1991. What other facts are you waiting for? Maybe not all the facts are in on the Lincoln assassination so do you want to declare John Wilkes Booth innocent until all the facts are in?

 

If, however, Iraqi weapons are found or Assad regime officials admit that WMDs were moved into Syria will you accept it?

 

Only if you can adequately explain why no one on the Iraqi side has stated that such a transfer occurred.  Also, if there are no weapons found are you going to state that Syria destroyed them or the Russians moved them out?

 

Again, I have nothing emotionally invested in this discussion. 

 

I doubt that. Otherwise you would not have screamed about Bush haters and the liberal media in your first post.

 

 

 It does not appear that the WMD program was nearly as advanced as we were led to believe, but I don't think there is enough information to conclude that WMDs or WMD program components were NOT moved out of the country. 

 

T hat is not what you stated in your first post. You said they were found and Bush was right. So what other facts are you really waiting for? Do you truly think the WMDs were moved to Syria?

 

 Obviously there was no nuclear program, and unless you can come up with more reliable evidence than Curveball there was no active biological program either. That leaves chemical weapons.

 The Iraqi chemical program never weaponized VX and their tabun and sarin stocks (pre-1991) were very unstable. They could never get the purities right. The only WMD that Iraq managed to produce en masse that was stable was sulfur mustard (AKA mustard gas), which was easy to do. Iraq could have reconstituted this program in a matter of weeks if it so desired. There was no need to hide or send the mustard gas program to another country, that would have unnecessarily complicated things.. Thus the easiest way to get rid of its program was to destroy it, which is what Iraq did both unilaterally and under UNSCOM supervision.

 

http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/un...

 

I decided to respond to this now instead of wait because I don't know if you will respond to my questions. Even if you do you will probably equivocate. I hope you prove me wrong though. In any event I only responded to this thread in response to you and your unverified assertions about WMDs being found and Bush being right. You seem to be walking back from those statements now.
Most of what you posted here was unverified claptrap, probably from your own memory or meager Google searches. You do not explain why the UN or the US Government drew the conclusions they did on WMDs based on interviews, documents, and weapons inspections. Also, I doubt your claim you have no emotional attachment to this debate, otherwise you would have at least read the UN reports I have referenced, instead of discount them.

 I have looked at evidence from both sides in this debate. All the primary source evidence suggests that Iraq did not have WMDs, either to hide or to transfer, in 2003.  So far you have exhibited a poor understanding of the subject matter. You conflate different time periods, misinterpret official statements, and cannot perform basic research functions.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch    Software Fixes   4/24/2012 10:07:22 AM
Some sources did not show up.
 
http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/Index_UNMOVIC.html
" target="_blank">link
http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/unmovic/unmovic-blix-030703.htm
 
" target="_blank">link
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237    Plutarch   4/26/2012 4:22:48 PM
First of all, congratulations on all the free time you apparently have on hand to sit down and respond to these posts in a timely fashion. At first I wasn’t sure if I should feel jealous of the amount of free time you seem to have, or feel pity for you because you don’t have enough going on in your social calendar that would prevent you from typing out such lengthy posts. Based upon what you’ve written over the last few days I have come to the conclusion that pity is probably more in order.
 
The infantryman/cop inside of me wants to tell you to take your questions and shoved them up your smarmy ass, but I want to maintain a modicum in civility in this conversation even if it’s one sided. I understand that people will disagree with me from time to time, but that’s OK. It doesn’t make them stupid, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that the methods they used to reach those beliefs are somehow flawed or less refined than mine. Even when I feel that way I deliberately avoid pointing that out because it will serve no purpose other than pissing the other person off and deflecting away from the actual conversation. Unfortunately that seems to be a common tactic on this site these days (and for the last few years). It isn’t enough to debate the other person’s points, you also have to call them stupid and accuse them of lying. So on to the questions then. I doubt you will like my answers, and have already predicted that I am going to “equivocate”, but I will answer honestly (just like I have everything else), whether you choose to believe that or not.
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237    Question #1   4/26/2012 4:26:16 PM
1. Since you accept UN numbers, and thus the UN weapons inspection process, and even by inference the fact the IAEA knowingly left uranium in Iraq, why do you not make the same allowances for chemical munitions uncovered post-war but left there knowingly by UNSCOM ?
 
 
I accept that most of the people assigned to UN inspection teams (and other technical teams under the auspices of the UN) are professionals and are technically proficient. If an inspector says he visually examined a WMD component, verified it, and watched it destroyed, I can accept that. What I do not accept is the assertion that the UN is somehow apolitical and that politics did not play a role in the inspection process. There are a lot of people in the UN that feel that the UN’s role is to serve as a counterbalance to US interests, and think that guided some of the actions of the UN inspection teams. At the very least I believe it guided some of the information that was released. I believe that for some personnel the main priority was to prevent war, not give a full accounting of Iraq’s compliance with UN resolutions. Uranium cannot be easily converted into a usable weapon, but chemical munitions can. For UNSCOM to uncover chemical munitions yet do nothing about them makes no sense. Insurgents actually attempted to use chemical shells to make IEDs, and several outside “chemical experts” were captured in Iraq after 2003. The Iraqis certainly understood the potential utility of these weapons, why didn’t the UN?
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237    Question #2 pt.1    4/26/2012 4:29:14 PM
1. If Bush was right on Iraqi WMDs why has he not stated so at any point in the last eight years or so? Why would he go out of his way to say emphatically they were no t the re?

In 2000 I wasn’t completely sold on G.W. Bush. He wasn’t conservative enough for me, but eventually it came down to either him or Gore. I was emboldened by the way he led the country after 9/11 and how he took the war to the enemy. I feel that history will judge him more kindly than the media has. One of the things that has bugged me about Bush is that he won’t stand up for himself. He is more than content with letting his legacy speak for himself. I believe President Bush sincerely believed that Iraq possessed WMDs and active WMD programs, but as the war progressed the focus had to switch away from the search for WMDs and focus on dealing with the growing insurgency. The WMD issue was being politicized and was becoming a distraction. Paul Bremer was pressuring the Administration to place less emphasis on WMDs and more emphasis on counterinsurgency efforts. Bush had a dilemma. Small chemical weapons caches and potential labs were being uncovered, but it was far from the vast stockpiles they were promised. There was evidence that materials had been moved to Syria, but to further explore this avenue would mean risking an expansion of the war. I think at this point Bush did the only thing he could do politically. He took the argument off the table by conceding that the intelligence had been wrong and that there were no WMDs in Iraq. I don’t think he actually believed that, but if he continued to argue there were he would be accused of being either delusional or of trying to start a war with yet another Arab country (Syria).
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237    Question #2 pt.2    4/26/2012 5:02:49 PM
I believe that Bush has continued to stick to this line because it would not serve him to do otherwise. To come forward now and state he was right would serve no purpose other than invite scorn. Even if he released some of the intelligence he had at the time a lot of people in the media would accuse him of making it up. Also, unlike other past presidents, Bush wouldn’t do anything that would complicate the current administration’s foreign policy efforts. Releasing hard intelligence (if it exists) that Iraqi WMDs were transported to Syria would only place pressure on the Obama Administration to take a harder stance against the Assad regime, to include deploying US troops to the regime. Bush does not seem like the kind of man to do something like that. For better or worse Bush seems willing to allow history to judge him without his input. If he is vindicated, so be it, but for whatever reason has decided to let others have this discussion.
 
I try to live by a certain code, Plutarch.  It may seem quaint, but I believe that as a former soldier and a police officer it is important that I abide by certain personal standards.  The first is that I have courage.  I have to be willing to do things that other people normally wouldn't do.  Next I have to be honest, both to others and myself.  I come by my beliefs after sorting through the available information and making informed decisions based upon what I believe the fact are.  If I am proven wrong I am willing to change my mind, but it always irritates me when someone claims to have all the facts and declares a debate over.  Last, but not least, I try to treat others the way I would want to be treated.  Usually that means maintaining a good brain/mouth filter and being cognizant of how my words could impact others. 
 
It is human nature to believe that people that don't share your views must be less intelligent or less intuitive than you, but expressing those sentiments in what is supposed to be an exchange of ideas serves no useful purporse.  I doubt you would do so in a face to face discussion, because depending upon the person you could open yourself to a punch in the nose.  To do so over the Internet is cowardly.
 
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237    By the way.......   4/26/2012 5:06:49 PM
From Google.....
 
Suspension of disbelief or willing suspension of disbelief is a formula for justifying the use of fantastic or non-realistic elements in literary works of fiction. The phrase was coined in 1817 by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who suggested that if a writer could infuse a "human interest and a semblance of truth" into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative. Suspension of disbelief often applies to fictional works of the action, comedy, science fiction, and horror genres.Cognitive estrangement in fiction involves using a person's ignorance or lack of knowledge to promote suspension of disbelief.
 
The phrase "suspension of disbelief" came to be used more loosely in the later 20th century, often used to imply that the burden was on the reader, rather than the writer, to achieve it. This might be used to refer to the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium, so that these do not interfere with the acceptance of those premises. These fictional premises may also lend to the engagement of the mind and perhaps proposition of thoughts, ideas, art and theories.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch    Smitty   4/26/2012 10:28:17 PM
The phrase "suspension of disbelief" came to be used more loosely in the later 20th century, often used to imply that the burden was on the reader, rather than the writer, to achieve it. This might be used to refer to the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium, so that these do not interfere with the acceptance of those premises.
 
Right, and you still defined it the exact opposite. What you defined was suspension of "belief" not disbelief.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics