WMDs in Syria

According to Gen. Georges Sada, Saddam's former #2 in the airforce. Iraq's WMD's are in Syria

Click to expand...

That's the problem right there; how did they coerce this supposed testimony? What an excellent reason for Bush to tout to the comatosic public to invade Syria; and when they're not found, we can have a Syrian General say it was in Iran. LOL I vote this thread as the misinformed thread of the week.

Kicking their *** is easy.

Click to expand...

OH yea, that's why Bush said we will have to be there until 2009; I don't recall us winning Iraq yet; must not be easy? That's right.

beyondtherim said:

how did they coerce this supposed testimony?

Click to expand...

It was a book deal. They (and don't ask who 'they' is - possessing that knowledge is simply too dangerous) promised him millions for the movie rights if he would only write a plausible story. He did. Now we anxiously await the movie.

Iriemon said:

Exactly! That is the battle we should be fighting. We are losing the battle of ideas, which we are trying to fight with misrepresentations and weapons. It's not working; we need a different plan. A plan that doesn't fuel radicalism in the ME.

Click to expand...

Yes, but restraint is not the answer. Men like Saddam can not be allowed to continue oppression and to export terror to his surrounding areas. A government like Iran must not be allowed the leverage of nuclear weapons. The greatest diversion for the oppressed masses in the Middle East is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. As long as men like Saddam and the Iranian elite continue to fund and encourage this conflict, we will continue to lose the IO war.

Our problem is that we have spent the duration of the "Cold War" perfecting our intelligencia to battle another superpower. We are faced with something new and our dinosuars are clinging to the tactics of old with the greatest spirit of Tyranosaurus Rex. We need to change the way we think. In time, we will. We have always had the ability to adapt to the behaviours of our enemies. However, we face an enemy who is waging war through the mind and soul and is using religion to recruit. They have us at an advantage.

GySgt said:

Yes, but restraint is not the answer. Men like Saddam can not be allowed to continue oppression and to export terror to his surrounding areas.

Click to expand...

I have never seen one example of, in the history of terrorist attacks, Iraq/Hussein ever being implicated in one of them. And I haven't even seen credible evidence of him "exporting terror".

A government like Iran must not be allowed the leverage of nuclear weapons.

Click to expand...

I certainly agree we should do everything we can to dissuade it. But ultimately, we alone have no right to dictate to another country whether it has a nuclear weapon.

The greatest diversion for the oppressed masses in the Middle East is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

Click to expand...

True. And since the Bush administration came it with its strong tilt towards Israel, we have seen the consequences. The US policy should be neutral on that issue.

As long as men like Saddam and the Iranian elite continue to fund and encourage this conflict, we will continue to lose the IO war.

Click to expand...

Hussein wasn't a radical Islamic. As long as we continue to meddle in affairs we no nothing about, we will continue to make matters worse by threatening their religion and fueling radicalism.

Our problem is that we have spent the duration of the "Cold War" perfecting our intelligencia to battle another superpower. We are faced with something new and our dinosuars are clinging to the tactics of old with the greatest spirit of Tyranosaurus Rex. We need to change the way we think. In time, we will. We have always had the ability to adapt to the behaviours of our enemies. However, we face an enemy who is waging war through the mind and soul and is using religion to recruit. They have us at an advantage.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And invading a nation on bogus false pretext, lying about our intent, and killing scores of muslems daily just doesn't seem to be the answer to winning the war of ideas to me.

Neither does slaughtering the problem.

beyondtherim55008@yahoo.c said:

OH yea, that's why Bush said we will have to be there until 2009; I don't recall us winning Iraq yet; must not be easy? That's right.

Click to expand...

This is obtuse. The enemy is in Chad, Ethiopia, Sudan, Bosnia, Indonesia, Iraq, and the Philipines and many other places. Of the places I listed, Al-Queda and other organizations are taking a beating. They are unorganized and reeling from defeats. "We are kicking their asses."

The enemy in Iraq is being slaughtered from town to town. However, we can remain in Iraq until 2025, and we will still be fighting. This is a war of attrition. There will be no end day where all parties will come to a table and sign a declaration. The past days of neat and packaged wars are gone. The future of warfare will be in this manner. The tangible enemy was Saddam and his Regime - done and gone. What is left is a rag tag bunch of Sunni who pine for the good old days and who are adhering to anchient passed down traditions of sectorial bigotry and hate. The insurgency is no where near what it used to be. Religious feuding has the tendency to go on and on. In the Muslim world, "defeat" is never final as long as "God" is whispering into a zealots ear.

You are tunnel visioned on one battlefield. Iraq is not the only place where we are battling Radical Islam.

GySgt said:

The enemy in Iraq is being slaughtered from town to town. However, we can remain in Iraq until 2025, and we will still be fighting. This is a war of attrition. There will be no end day where all parties will come to a table and sign a declaration. The past days of neat and packaged wars are gone. The future of warfare will be in this manner. The tangible enemy was Saddam and his Regime - done and gone. What is left is a rag tag bunch of Sunni who pine for the good old days and who are adhering to anchient passed down traditions of sectorial bigotry and hate. The insurgency is no where near what it used to be. Religious feuding has the tendency to go on and on. In the Muslim world, "defeat" is never final as long as "God" is whispering into a zealots ear.

Click to expand...

Yes. Exactly. We will be fighting, like every other unwanted occupational army from time immemorial, a resistance forever.

So we ultimately have three options, don't we?

1) Maintain the war of attrition as an occupational army, slaughtering Muslems daily, fueling and supporting the radical element of Islam.

2) Your final solution: Slaughter all the Muslems in Iraq. And we couldn't stop there, could we? We'd have to slaughter all the Muslems in the ME.

3) Get the hell out of their country and let the Iraqis sort it our themselves. And if we have any sense, apologize for the "mistake" we made and pay reparations to what ever govt comes out of it for the damaged our mistake has caused. If we did the right thing, maybe some of them would think we are not trying to destroy their religion after all, and they wouldn't be motivated to support the radical element.

Iriemon said:

I have never seen one example of, in the history of terrorist attacks, Iraq/Hussein ever being implicated in one of them. And I haven't even seen credible evidence of him "exporting terror".

Click to expand...

Saddam fixed his visions on Iranian oil and invaded.

Saddam fixed his visions on Kuwaiti oil and invaded.

During the Gulf War, Saddam sent scud missiles to Israel, which had nothing to do with the Gulf War.

During the 90's Saddam payed the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.






.....Therefore, Saddam Hussein "exported" terror.

GySgt said:

Saddam fixed his visions on Iranian oil and invaded.

Saddam fixed his visions on Kuwaiti oil and invaded.

Click to expand...

Neither has anything to do with a terrorist attack.

During the Gulf War, Saddam sent scud missiles to Israel, which had nothing to do with the Gulf War.

Click to expand...

That is closer, you could certainly make the argument that those that use missiles and bombs are causing terror and are terrorists, but it certainly wasn't a terrorist attack against us.

During the 90's Saddam payed the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.

Click to expand...

The fund he set up paid $25k to the families of all Palestinians who died fighting Isreal. It's not a terrorist attack, and can only be argued to be supporting terrorism in the most indirect and convoluted way. And again, not directed against us.


.....Therefore, Saddam Hussein did not "export" terror.

Iriemon said:

Neither has anything to do with a terrorist attack.

Click to expand...

...and? Since when did "exporting terror" specifically mean a terrorist attack? Hitler exported terror as well.

Iriemon said:

That is closer, you could certainly make the argument that those that use missiles and bombs are causing terror and are terrorists, but it certainly wasn't a terrorist attack against us.

Click to expand...

Again...."exporting terror" is not specific to a terrorist act. In all instances, Saddam attacked non-military institutions, peaceful nations, and nations who had no intentions on being a threat to him. "Greed" led his reign of terror.

Iriemon said:

The fund he set up paid $25k to the families of all Palestinians who died fighting Isreal. It's not a terrorist attack, and can only be argued to be supporting terrorism in the most indirect and convoluted way. And again, not directed against us.

Click to expand...

Propaganda meant for sympathizers. It is entirely ignorant to believe this.

Iriemon said:

.....Therefore, Saddam Hussein did not "export" terror.

Click to expand...

....therefore, Saddam Hussein did, in fact, "export" terror. Whenh he is convicted by an Iraqi justice system you can send himn some Hallmark Cards explaining how you stick up for him. Are you so partisan that this is where you would stoop?

GySgt said:

...and? Since when did "exporting terror" specifically mean a terrorist attack? Hitler exported terror as well.

Click to expand...

How are or did Iraq's military invasions (in the early 80s and 1990) supporting terrorists?

Again...."exporting terror" is not specific to a terrorist act. In all instances, Saddam attacked non-military institutions, peaceful nations, and nations who had no intentions on being a threat to him. "Greed" led his reign of terror.

Click to expand...

My speculation his scud attacks on Isreal were not for greed but to draw Isreal into the war to try to make it a pan-Arabic effort.

Propaganda meant for sympathizers. It is entirely ignorant to believe this.

Click to expand...

One could say the same for your contention.

Here's a source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm.

....therefore, Saddam Hussein did, in fact, "export" terror. Whenh he is convicted by an Iraqi justice system you can send himn some Hallmark Cards explaining how you stick up for him. Are you so partisan that this is where you would stoop?

Click to expand...

Hussein isn't on trial for supporting terrorists. He is on trial for ordering the murder of 100+ people after there was a murder attempt on him. Which I find somewhat bizarre; all the claims I have ready from the neocon crowd about the hundreds of thousands or millions of people he executed, and they put him on trial for just 130?

And I'm sure the "Iraqi justice system" will be perceived as completely fair given the American troops surrounding the courthouse.

But arguing he "exported terrorism" because he paid money to surviving Palestinian family members as a justification for why we had to invade Iraq seems pretty lame to me. There are certainly bigger fish to fry if the goal is to stop those who support terrorism, as you have pointed out.

Iriemon said:

Hussein isn't on trial for supporting terrorists. He is on trial for ordering the murder of 100+ people after there was a murder attempt on him. Which I find somewhat bizarre; all the claims I have ready from the neocon crowd about the hundreds of thousands or millions of people he executed, and they put him on trial for just 130?

Click to expand...

IIRC, (and I'll try and find a link to the info on this, but its now at least one year old), the Iraqi's chose this 'event' with which to try Saddam because there were still survivors and witnesses available that were more readily available than some of his other atrocities. They chose the low hanging fruit, so to speak.

On the question of Saddam 'exporting' or otherwise supporting terrorism, it seems pretty well documented, though again, I'll have to resurrect some links, 'cause some time has passed. There was a reason that the terrorist who captured the Achille Lauro and sent that poor old Jewish guy into the water in his wheelchair chose Baghdad as his haven; there was a reason that Zarqawi and the al Qaeda group of which he was a part chose northwestern Iraq for their camp; there was a reason for the terrorist training facilities at Salman Pak; there was a reason for Saddam funneling money to the terrorist groups based in Syria and the Bekaa Valley; there was a reason that Saddam glorified Palestinian suicide bombers - and that reason was that Saddam supported and exported terrorism, either directly or, more to Saddam's style, indirectly.

oldreliable67 said:

IIRC, (and I'll try and find a link to the info on this, but its now at least one year old), the Iraqi's chose this 'event' with which to try Saddam because there were still survivors and witnesses available that were more readily available than some of his other atrocities. They chose the low hanging fruit, so to speak.

On the question of Saddam 'exporting' or otherwise supporting terrorism, it seems pretty well documented, though again, I'll have to resurrect some links, 'cause some time has passed. There was a reason that the terrorist who captured the Achille Lauro and sent that poor old Jewish guy into the water in his wheelchair chose Baghdad as his haven; there was a reason that Zarqawi and the al Qaeda group of which he was a part chose northwestern Iraq for their camp; there was a reason for the terrorist training facilities at Salman Pak; there was a reason for Saddam funneling money to the terrorist groups based in Syria and the Bekaa Valley; there was a reason that Saddam glorified Palestinian suicide bombers - and that reason was that Saddam supported and exported terrorism, either directly or, more to Saddam's style, indirectly.

Click to expand...

Hi OR67,

As you know we have reviewed these claims, and I have studied them in in detail in the past. Short version: I did see reports that the Acchilles Lauro guy (Abbas?) spent time in Bahgdad, he was also given safe passage through Palestine and Israel by Israel because of his involvement in the peace process. Same guy who was in charge of distribution of Hussein's Palenstinian survivor fund, I believe. Zaraqawi stuff is very unreliable, as is speculation that Hussein supported terrorist camps in Northern Iraq, an area he did not control. After the invasion, no evidence was found that Salman Pak was used to train terrorists. I'm not familiar about supporting terrorists groups in Syria, this is new to me.

In sum, IMO, after spending many hours researching the allegations, the reports of Hussein supporting terrorists are sketchy and unreliable. Not IMO the level of evidence of support that would justify an invasion; and certainly not the level I have seen indicated from other countries, including Saudi Arabia (who, for example, sent the Palestinians a lot more money than Hussein did). I also admit that based on exagerrations and misrepresentations I have seen about Hussein and Iraq from anti-Iraq (ie neocon) sources in the past, I have a degree of skeptism when I read unfounded reports about what he allegedly did.

Iriemon said:

How are or did Iraq's military invasions (in the early 80s and 1990) supporting terrorists?

Click to expand...

Those two invasions didn't "support" terrorists. Iran was a country that just wanted to be left alone, and because of Islamic theocracy, had become a weakened state to be preyed on by the resident bully (We could say different if Iran had launched a few rockets into Iraq and Saddam retaliated with invasion). Kuwait is a peaceful country that didn't invite aggression nor did it expel agression. They too just wanted to be left alone. It was an act of terror. It would be the same thing as America deciding to invade Puerto Rico because we wanted their Rum. It would be an act of terror.

Iriemon said:

My speculation his scud attacks on Isreal were not for greed but to draw Isreal into the war to try to make it a pan-Arabic effort.

Click to expand...

Correct. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a great diversion for all those Arab and Persian leaders who wish to keep their oppressed masses fixated anywhere other than there mundane and futureless lives. To the Muslims in the Middle The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not about what the name implies - it is about Zions versus Muslims.

Iriemon said:

Hussein isn't on trial for supporting terrorists. He is on trial for ordering the murder of 100+ people after there was a murder attempt on him. Which I find somewhat bizarre; all the claims I have ready from the neocon crowd about the hundreds of thousands or millions of people he executed, and they put him on trial for just 130?

And I'm sure the "Iraqi justice system" will be perceived as completely fair given the American troops surrounding the courthouse.

But arguing he "exported terrorism" because he paid money to surviving Palestinian family members as a justification for why we had to invade Iraq seems pretty lame to me. There are certainly bigger fish to fry if the goal is to stop those who support terrorism, as you have pointed out.

Click to expand...

Convicting him of the "100+" killings is the easiest thing isn't it? It is plenty needed to do what has to be done.

Invading Iraq had a lot more to do than just this or just that. There were a multiple of reasons. One thing is undeniable. As long as Palestinians continue to strap bombs to themselves and walk into crowded Israeli markets, Israeli will continue to retaliate and do what is necessary to protect their people. The Iranian leadership, Saudi leadership, and characters like Saddam are encouraging this behavior - and they aren't doing it because they care for the Palestinians.