Wow. This thread has grown since my last visit.
I find it interesting how, despite all investigations into Iraq's WMD programs showing significant degradation since the Gulf War, especially his
nuclear programs, that Saddam is still believed to have been smuggling weapons into Syria. From where? From what plant, as a part of what WMD
program?
You guys are not holding your investigations to any common standard of acceptable evidence. The most you have is conjecture, that it *may* have
happened, or those suspicious-looking barrels *may* have had some illegal chemicals in them. I doubt they did, but regardless, "may" is a statement
that shows conjecture. There should be concrete proof of these claims if we are to invade another country and put tens of thousands of more lives at
stake.
Possibly the first noticeable person to warn that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction could go to Syria was former UN inspector Richard Butler.
He warned that when he worked in Iraq between 1997 and 1999, he saw intelligence indicating that suspicious containers were routinely moved in and out
of Iraq from Syria, and that there was evidence they contained banned materials. Few realized what an impact Syria's role would play later in
the future.
Where is this "evidence"? Have it handy?
Intelligence gathering, including defector testimony, indicated that even in August 2002, before Saddam let UN inspectors back in, indicated
that Iraq was still receiving WMD components and materials through Syria. [5] Around this same time, Iraqi officials who defected to Europe in 2002
claimed that Iraq had ordered three shipments of Scud missiles from the Czech Republic, using Syria. Thinking the missiles and components were going
to Syria, the Czechs had no problem supplying. The defectors say the Czechs were tricked, and that the first shipment of missiles had already arrived
in 2002 in Iraq. [6]
This, I would believe, and it seems valid as there are apparently more specific claims and there are also sources. Iraq violated the terms of its
sanctions with some of the missiles that it dealed with, but these missiles hardly qualify as WMDs, let alone any reason to invade the freaking
country and kill tens of thousands of people, at least.
The claim Bush was making, was that Iraq was a continuing "threat" and was continuing to develop its WMD programs and produce WMDs, as well as a
nuclear program, and that there was evidence that Saddam had killed more of his people, etc. Pretty much anything to get us to support a war there.
What we found, was that his programs were in fact degraded, and the only WMDs he had were the ones sold to him (likely by our own government) during
the Iran-Iraq War, laying around in junk heaps, and extremely primitive compared to modern WMD tech. Pretty much a missile with gas in it. Not very
complicated.
To further matters, at least one of these missiles were triggered, set up as booby traps, and they didn't even work anymore. They were useless.
Laying around in junk heaps from a war about 2 decades earlier.
So what about his programs? Degraded from all available evidence, including the in-depth Duelfer Report. Nuclear? Must've been a joke. So where are
these plants, these programs, that he allegedly made these weapons that he allegedly sent to Syria? Reports of "maybe" or "might" or "may" are
not only uncredible, but don't even come to any sort of solid conclusion. You might want to stick to higher standards of evidence before waging war
where human beings are killed. It's sort of the right thing to do.
Like I said.. provide something other than conjecture here if you want to make a point. There are too many lives at stake to be buying into
propoganda, which is all that this is until you prove otherwise. These countries are not a threat to the United States in the least.
