Seaver

We all have probably heard about General Sada by now. He was the #2 man in the Iraqi Air Force, claims that he personally witnessed WMD's loaded onto planes that flew to Syria.

Here's some background information I dug up.

So he is a very honorable man, protected the life of an American pilot from execution with the risk of his own.

Being that high up he is clearly a credible source. It would not be difficult to mount up WMD's into cargo planes under the guise of relief support, as a simple hanger could defeat even the best satillites and aircrafter out there.

If this is true what does everyone suggest we do? Doing nothing would simply mean that Syria could just hand it off to Hamas or Al Quaeda. True their ideologies could hardly match, but their common enemy can easily override that. A full invasion is completely feasable, but our only ally in that would be Israel and Lebanon, and the former we dont exactly want their help.

host

This is a request to mods to move this thread out of the politics forum, because, politically speaking, this is a "settled" matter. This subject is more appropriate in "General Discussion", or in "Paranoia", just as, most of us accept..... the 9/11 "Conspiracy" threads are, until and if the time comes when a controversy can be convincingly "backed up".

The third quote box makes it probable that General Sada is employing "heresay" to sell a book.

The Duelfer Report found no evidence to confirm Sada's claim. The Bush administration has never retracted the Jan. 12, 2005 statements to the press by their spokesman, about this matter, available in the second quote box, below.
...and as recently as yesterday....

tecoyah

Your request is noted. Though the issue of just how "Settled" this is, remains in debate.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

tecoyah

I propose a change in direction for this thread, as a way to frame it for debate:


If indeed there is truth to this theory and Iraq did move chemical weapons out of country, taking into account the move away from WMD's as justification for the war in the first place by the Administration, would this even be relevant anymore. Or do you think the Administration would re-emphasize this issue as reasoning for the invasion, in an attempt to regain support from the American People.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Nimetic

It'd be a little stupid to invade a country based on heresay.

Lets say that they did exist, and they did get flown to Syria without being detected. Well if that's possible, then they could be anywhere now.

Anyways - which country are you going to pick, out of Syria, Iran and North Korea? Or would you support invading all three?

stevo

This isn't the first source to say WMDs were moved to Syria, its not going to be the last. Soon enough you will hear from those pilots that actually flew the planes to Syria admit to it. Then what will you say? I'm beyond the point where I think it even matters if WMDs are found in Syria. The left won't agree that the war was justified anyway. I can already hear their arguements. "well, they weren't found in iraq, so they don't count" "how do you know they even came from iraq" "the could have been from syrias wmd program" "blah blah blah" So it really doesn't even matter. The truth will come out in plain sight one day - but that doesn't mean everyone will believe it.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Charlatan

1) What would be the shelf life of those chemical weapons?
2) Is Syria in any position to use them? If so, what would they gain by it?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

stevo

1)don't know
2)It may not be important to them to use the weapons. What would they gain by letting iraq dump them in syria...1)cash payoff from saddam 2)Help in making the US look bad. We are not a friend to syria. Syria considers us an enemy more than an ally. By taking in the weapons prior to the war syria pretty much garuntees that the US looks bad and bush looks like a liar. They help in destroying our credibility. This isn't a matter or incentive-there's plenty. If you want more reasons see seaver's post below

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Seaver

1) The shelf life depends on what type and how it is stored. Chemical weapons as long as they are stored in a cool environment can last decades. Biological depend on what type. Anthrax can last easily over 100yrs in almost any condition, while botulism and others need to be kept either cool or frozen to last. Either way their shelf life of almost any WMD is long enough that Syria if they have them doesn't need tow orry.

2) Syria is not in a position to use them. If they exist they are better off laying low until the next president comes in or the Iraq war ends. However what I'm afraid of is they will simply hand off to Al Quaeda, Hamas, or the PLO who are drooling at the chance to use it on Israel, England, France, Germany, USA, (insert western country here).

Sorry if I disagree. Your suggestions that Bush planned the attacks on 9/11 or the "Is Bush a Plant?" hold absolutely no water in comparison to the #2 man in the Iraqi Air Force.

So you state it's a "settled matter". What if the documentation comes out stating that the weapons were moved? What if the pilots themselves come out and say they piloted the planes?

What would it take for you to believe that there is validity to this? The other ones moved to Paranoia because they were written by crackpots, I'd start to believe your threads if they were posted by a high ranking General/Admiral in our military.

roachboy

what are you talking about?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Seaver

You know what I'm talking about, I'm talking about Syria handing off one WMD (if it is true) to any of the terrorist organizations in order to strike at their common enemy.

roachboy

um---i dont follow your logic. i dont see any connection between al queada hamas--especially now--and the plo.
i dont see any connection as to agenda. i dont see any "drooling to use wmds on the western country of your choice."
what i do see is paranoia shaped by the "logic" of the (wholly worthless) huntington thesis.
i am not sure that this is an argument worth persuing....so i'll leave it at that, for my part at least.


as for tec's question: i dont know what the implications of reliable information surfacing as to the wmd claims woudl be at this point. i dont think that such information exists, because i do not personally think the transfer happened. but like host said, it does sell books. marketing is like that--that goes for books and war, apparently. capitalism is grand like that.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

I believe it's too late. Had we been able to prove there were 1) links between the al Qaeda, 9/11, Saddam, Iraq, we would have had a justification for our war in Iraq (one of the largest obsticles for the administration in the PR department). The weapons are fast becoming a sidenote to the "free iraq" motto. Because of the fundamental change in the reasoning behind our attack on Iraq, proving there were WMDs, while helpful, would not heal the hemoraging wound of credibility. Honestly, right now, there is evidence contradicting the this story about weapons being moved to Syria. During several interrogations in the early to mid 90s information was extracted that confirmed that most if not all the weapons were destroyed because of the UN inspections.

Bodyhammer86

But there was also evidence to suggest that they were still there from 97-98, and of course, playing games with the inspectors didn't help Saddam's credibility any.

__________________
Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/

joshbaumgartner

The potential of WMDs from Iraq existing in other parts of the world would seem to be a significant security item which should be getting an appropriate response.

However, I have to see it in the light of Administration's claims directly prior to the war that they had actionable intelligence on exact locations of the chemical infrastructure in Iraq, and that if the bumbling UN would have just let the US in, we would be able to take them right to the exact locations. Like many things stated about WMDs prior to the war (45 minute deployment times; chemical belts around Baghdad; etc.), this proved to be nothing but fancy.

If the Administration was right about Iraq's WMD capability, and they were honest about the WMDs being the rationale for war, then it would follow that the fate of those WMDs would remain an important aspect of our policy. Only certain paths would thus make sense. If the weapons left Iraq long before the war, then we were wrong about them having WMD capabilities. If they left Iraq shortly before war, then we would have found the remains of the chemical infrastructure (maintaining stockpiles of chemical weapons involve a lot more than just the weapons themselves). In either case, the tracking of the stockpile should have been a high priority for our intelligence system, and losing track of them would have been an extreme failure. I somehow doubt that the Israelis would have allowed them to come closer to their state without at least having clear knowledge on their status at all times. Thus we have no excuse for not at least knowing what country they are in. If they are in an unstable place, then why aren't we going after them, as they are no less threat in Syria or Yemen or wherever then they were in Iraq?

Now it is possible that we do know where they are, and just don't have the military capacity to do what we did to Iraq to this other country right now, mainly because we've bogged our military down in a conflict in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Of course this would lend credence the idea that the Iraq war has made us less safe, as it didn't get its target, while it has made us less capable of responding to future threats.

Seaver

How do you not figure the logic? Common hatred creates strange allies.

We are allied with Turkministan, they aid us in our fight against terrorism although politically we could not be farther apart. Syria absolutely despises Israel, while they may not hand it off to Hamas, they have always supported the PLO because of their common socialistic-secular government structures.

joshbaumgartner

As for shelf life, it is an excellent question. Chemical weapons have relatively limited shelf life, although specifics depend on the type in question. A chemical weapons stockpile can't exist on its own, at lest not for long. It requires an infrastructure of manufacture, storage, transportation, delivery, and command to maintain it for more than a couple of years at most. Since the majority of hard evidence we have of chemical weapons existing in Iraq comes from prior to Desert Storm, for Iraq to retain this capability would have required such an infrastructure.

We can easily visualize loading drums of VX in solution or whatever onto transports and flying them out to Syria. What isn't so readily acceptable is the idea that the entire infrastructure could be transported out, or the parts that couldn't be transported destroyed in such a short period of time, and that this task could be done so secretly and so completely that we wouldn't have any real evidence to its existance remain. We know Saddam had chemicals at some point, true, but we haven't found anything yet that indicates that he had an active chemical warfare capability during the lead-up to the invasion.

It takes the US a decade to close a chemical warfare facility and finally get the thing to the point where it isn't soaked with remnants of its original role. But yet somehow Saddam can in a matter of months bury his entire chemical program or ship it abroad, all without us able to keep tabs on it?

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Saddam made some attempt to send chemical elements out of the country. What I find implausible is the idea that a chemical weapons program of such magnitude and capability as to warrant the invasion of a country could so quickly, completely, and secretly be cleansed just prior to said invasion.

As for Syria's use, I would think it unlikely that they would have much use at all for the agents. If some sensitive manufacturing tools were transferred, they'd probably find a home in Syria's program, but the agents themselves would be of little value.

Unlike a nuclear program, where fissile material is the currency that determines your capacity, chemical programs rely on infrastructure. The agenst themselves degrade rapidly, and are expensive and risky to store in large amounts. Instead, you need an infrastructure that can maintain a limited ready stockpile for quick use, with the manufacturing backup to both continually replenish your stockpile as well as be able to keep a supply given a usage situation. You can make a quantity and store it somewhere but you are likely to find it useless by the time you need it. If Saddam sent agents to Syria, they were very likely already inert if not nearly so, unless he had a significant infrastructure in Iraq.

What about terrorists? If Syria felt that Saddam's chemicals had use in being supplied to terrorists, versus simply supplying chemicals from other sources, then its probably a good thing, as pointed out above, these agents are very likely of little potency compared to fresh weapons that are part of an active chemical infrastructure. Frankly I don't see why Iraqi-made chemicals would be any more dangerous in Syrian or Iranian hands than say, Iranian-made chemicals.

Mojo_PeiPei

It wasn't "completely" "cleansed", they found plenty of shit, just never the "smoking gun".

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

joshbaumgartner

Stuff like shells that once upon a time may have held gas, mobile trailers that may have been part of a program, etc.? All perfectly good evidence that there once was a program in the country, a fact that is not in dispute. But we certainly haven't found any clear evidence of a program that had been active any time recently.

We not only haven't found the smoking gun, we haven't found that the gun even has been there recently. It is like we knew the guy owned a gun ten years ago, and we break into his house, hold the guy, and find a disused set of gun tools, a dusty old gun case, and some corroded shell casings. Then we come to the conclusion that the only reason we didn't find a gun is that he must have stashed it last night in the neighbor's yard. I'm sorry but its grasping at straws. Like I said above, I'm not saying he didn't try and hide something--I don't doubt that for a minute. What I doubt is that he could have done so with the speed, secrecy, and efficiency that he would have had to have done it to limit our findings to what we have uncovered.

smooth

There are a couple of assumptions that are bizarre to me in the claim that this man is a reliable or honorable person:
1) that someone is reliable on the basis of his military service in an enemy regime
2) that someone who does one honorable deed then becomes an honorable person in all his other endeavors, as well

I saw his interview last night on the Daily Show, by the way, and he did not claim to have personally witnessed the weapons loaded and flown to Syria.

What he said, and he made sure to clarify by restating himself midsentence, was that he saw the weapons earlier in his career, and knew where they were. Later, his men told him that they had loaded them up and flown them to Syria. He did not personally see them do this, but he stated that he believed his men.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

joshbaumgartner

Unfortunately, militaries are usually rife with rumors...my single stint proved that to me without a doubt. How many times did it come through the ship that we were changing course for Bosnia or Somalia or Iraq or wherever had been seen on the satellite news that night? Too many to count.

In a military run in a dictatorship under the rule of fear and subterfuge, in which everyone was watching their back, I can only imagine it would be worse.

I don't think he is a liar, but he may be getting more mileage out of this than the actual experience warrants. I am reminded of the many German generals who made post-war careers out of highlighting their dislike for Hitler. Not that they were being dishonest--many generals truly did detest the man--but it is also pretty easy to see that they understood that the best way to make it in a new order is to tell your new leaders what they like to hear. I don't have the hard data to call this general a liar, but I would bet that phrases such as saying you believed your men about a statement about where planes were headed are definitely chosen with the audience in mind, knowing that 'they were rumors, but rumors are common in the military' wouldn't have the same positive response from an American audience.

Willravel

Josh, those are three excelent posts. Kudos. Excelent contribution to discussion.

highthief

1) He is reliable only in that he agrees with the position of certain people who support the war.

2) Indeed. I hear Hitler was nice to his dogs, didn't make him a swell guy.

Good points, smooth.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

host

I'll share what has answered, for me, why no reputable news media outlet will "touch" "Vice Marshall Air" Georges Sada's <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200602%5CSPE20060202a.html">"WMD transfer via 56 sorties to Syria aboard 2 "converted" Iraqi Airline, passenger planes, a 747 and a 727."</a>

I believe that, as a group, we would take a leap forward if we could reach a consensus, as to whether this topic can support it's own weight..
<b>[1]</b>Georges Sada was "retired" from the Iraqi military, for at least 11 years before his WMD transfer story took place in latter 2002.

<b>[2]</b>Sada and his story seem to be a "product" of a fundamentalist christian centric, propaganda "Op", that is intended to dovetail with a conservative political goal to keep the WMD "door open", in an attempt to hold that 30 plus percent of the still "faithful", from abandoning hope that the left will be proven wrong about accusations of Bush "lying us into a war". I find it "odd" that Georges Sada is featured as a "speaker" by the agancy that sells his "services"...as you can see...he's part of a well known roster of clients.

<b>[3]</b>This quote from Sada, during his most recent service to Iraq, might even give pause to those who vouch for his WMD transfer claims:
<b>[4]</b>Sada's book publisher, http://www.integritypublishers.com was recently duped by a fraudster and scam artist "book author" who impersonated a psychologist. The California state professional board and the FTC seem to validate the accusations made by professor Gary Adams, against the "Integrity" published title, "Discover Your Child’s DQ Factor" author Greg Cynaumon, and the lack of cooperation in response to the fraud, by Integrity publisher, Joey Paul. Integrity exclusively publishes christian themed books, including three titles by Pat Robertson. All of these observations, topped by Sada's eleven year retirement, plus his lack of direct knowledge of the events that he is the lone promoter of, makes it impossible for me to move into a discussion of "what if" Sada is right about the 56 "sorties" to Syria.

<b>[5]</b>Relevant excerpt from the March 2005 Duelfer report to the CIA director.

<b>[1]</b><b>[2]</b>
<b>[3]</b>
<b>[4]</b>
<b>[5]</b>

Seaver

I dont know where or how you found all that Host, but thank you.

xepherys

Seaver: As the OP of the "Was Bush a Plant?" thread, I'll have you note it wasn't a "crackpot" writing... it was just an idea to toss out ther. *sigh* Let it die already...

As for the topic, it IS a matter of debate. I'm sorry, but weren't we selling weapons to Iraq in the 80's? I seem to remember this close tie we had and picture of Rumsfled shaking hands with Hussein. It's a matter of very little debate that Iraq did, in fact, have chemical weapons at least, and a broad array of WMDs at the worst. There's a reasonable debate that we sold them some of those, or at least shared technology with them to help them develop such. Ah how times have changed.

As for moving this to "Tilted Paranoia"... are you serious? So you only want to debate about things that are factual? That seems to pretty much defeat the purpose of having discussion threads.

I can see the hottest Poli thread topic being "George W. Bush is George H. W. Bush's son... discuss!?"

ubertuber

I assure you that you don't know what you're talking about. Those threads were moved because of the direction they took, not because of who created them.

In the future, I'll thank you for not referring to other members as crackpots.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Willravel

TY Uber, but if he really wants people to believe I am a crackpot about the 9/11 stuff, he is more than welcome to come and visit me in paranoia and try to prove me wrong. Until he does that, his statements and name calling carry no weight with me. They called Einsetin a crackpot. How do you say crackpot in German?