Dark Gypsy Curse
New member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The United States has no credible evidence that Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria early last year before the U.S.-led war that drove Saddam Hussein from power, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said Friday.
Rice said, "Any indication that something like that happened would be a very serious matter.
"But I want to be very clear: we don't, at this point, have any indications that I would consider credible and firm that that has taken place, but we will tie down every lead," she said at a White House briefing about Bush's trip Monday to a hemispheric summit in Mexico.
The US has accused Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons and has withdrawn its envoy to Damascus.
US tensions with Syria soared after Monday's killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in a bombing, although Washington has not directly accused Damascus of responsibility.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a Senate foreign affairs committee hearing the decision to recall the ambassador was a culmination of a "long series of problems" with Syria - notably allegations that Damascus has harboured Iraqi insurgents and allowed them to cross into Iraq to fight against US troops.
The vice president (Al Gore) and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously
In all sincerity, I doubt he'd invade, but if he did, I wouldn't be that shocked. If he did, obviously it'd be the wrong thing to do.Dark Gypsy Curse said:I was just curious because I have been reading a lot of theories such as Bush thinking about expanding into Syria.....I was wondering what you thought about that, like would he go into Syria, and why? Would he be doing the wrong thing or right thing? I am a little confused about it...
akyron said:Syria has all of Iraqs old WMD anyway. It would be a dirty little war.
Often I've heard you cons say this, but you seem to always simply claim that Syria has them, with no proof whatsoever. Does the thought that Saddam simply got rid of his weapons scare you? Or are you simply driven by hate of Saddam and love for Mr. Bush ("he's gotta be right!")?akyron said:Syria has all of Iraqs old WMD anyway. It would be a dirty little war.
Prove it please?akyron said:Syria has all of Iraqs old WMD anyway. It would be a dirty little war.
akyron said:Syria has all of Iraqs old WMD anyway. It would be a dirty little war.
akyron said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm
Saddam agents on Syria border helped move banned materials
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
"Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries, U.S. investigators have discovered."
"The shift was followed by the movement of trucks in and out of Syria suspected of carrying materials banned by U.N. sanctions. Once the shipments were made, the agents would leave and the regular border guards would resume their posts."
The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition.
Western spies: Syria storing WMD in Sudan
LONDON, April 9 (UPI) -- Western spy agencies say Damascus is smuggling missile and weapons of mass destruction components to Sudan so they won't be detected anywhere in Syria.
Since January 2004, Syrian President Bashar Assad has ordered shipments of Scud C and Scud D extended-range missiles as well as weapons components to be flown to warehouses in Khartoum, Middle East News Line reported Friday.
26 X World Champs said:Just wondering why you left out the 2nd paragraph of the piece:
Considering the source, The Wash. Times, a notorious right wing paper. They are about as conservative as it gets, and let's not even talk about its owner!
Want to read a funny, sort of related piece on this subject from the Wash. Times?
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040409-091306-5456r.htm
LOL! So the question of the moment then is where is Sudan shipping these weapons?
Remember the game HOT POTATO?
Shall we talk about the creditability of "Western Spies"?
26 X World Champs said:Just wondering why you left out the 2nd paragraph of the piece:
Considering the source, The Wash. Times, a notorious right wing paper. They are about as conservative as it gets, and let's not even talk about its owner!
Want to read a funny, sort of related piece on this subject from the Wash. Times?
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040409-091306-5456r.htm
LOL! So the question of the moment then is where is Sudan shipping these weapons?
Remember the game HOT POTATO?
Shall we talk about the creditability of "Western Spies"?
26 X World Champs said:Just wondering why you left out the 2nd paragraph of the piece:
Not trying to be disagreeable, but what you wrote is simply untrue. Supposedly he "had them" for the 1st Gulf War in 1991 but he didn't use them....please explain?akyron said:There was an extreme amount of shady dealings and the intent was to get and USE WMD. It is all over the report as well. When he had them he used them. I am glad they dug him out of his dirty spider hole.
akyron said:Cause pac quoted it earlier and I referred to it as well.
"Like Pac said before. There is much speculation "
There was an extreme amount of shady dealings and the intent was to get and USE WMD. It is all over the report as well. When he had them he used them. I am glad they dug him out of his dirty spider hole.
akyron said:Syria has all of Iraqs old WMD anyway. It would be a dirty little war.
26 X World Champs said:Not trying to be disagreeable, but what you wrote is simply untrue. Supposedly he "had them" for the 1st Gulf War in 1991 but he didn't use them....please explain?
akyron said:I was referring to
Deulfer:
Iraq became the first nation to use a nerve agent on the battlefield when it used Tabun munitions against Iran in 1984.
During the Iran-Iraq war, CW use helped the Iraqis turn back Iranian human-wave attacks when all other methods failed, buying time for Iraqi forces to regroup and replenish. Iraq again used CW successfully to help crush the popular revolt in 1991.
By 1991, Iraq had amassed a sizable CW arsenal, comprising thousands of short range rockets, artillery shells, and bombs, and hundreds of tons of bulk agent. It also had produced 50 nerve agent warheads for the 650 km-range al Husayn missile.
Despite the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 687 in April 1991, which called for Iraq to disarm, Iraq initially chose to retain CW weapons, precursors and associated equipment, making false declarations to the UN. Even when Iraq claimed to have complied with UNSCR 687 and its successors, Saddam retained components vital to restarting a CW program.
He had them and did use them.
Pacridge said:Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. It would be fairly asinine if we attacked them in 1955 and used that as an excuse.
akyron said:Well that not exactly a fair example since Saddam clearly demonstrated the appearance of having them, The willingness to use them, The desire to develop/obtain them for purpose of conquest. How were you going to know if you did not go in there an look?
Deulfer also clearly states how varied the level of cooperation they received was and how clearly Saddam tried(and succeeded in some cases) to circumvent UN sanctions to keep his weapons programs alive.
I agree waiting until 2003 was a mistake and not clearing out the regime in 91 was only letting a wound fester.
:good_job:Pacridge said:Yes, but none of this has anything to do with current events (84 & 91). And the Duelfer report, as well as the more recent President's commission, clearly state there's no evidence that Saddam had WMD's at the time we invaded. So I have no idea how this has any thing to do with the current Iraq war. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. It would be fairly asinine if we attacked them in 1955 and used that as an excuse.
26 X World Champs said::good_job:
Despite all the evidence there's still a sizable group of Americans who still believe the WMD scam. It's truly one of the great mysteries of this century. These ardent Bushies believe every single word that Bush says, 100%, with no exception. I believe that if Bush said 2+2=5 these same people would agree! :2brickwal
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?