[quote]smh23 wrote:
[/quote]
You don’t call or write and then think you can just come trouncing in here spouting logic? The nerve.
Russia isn’t guaranteeing Syria will get rid of all chemical weapons and the foreign fighters[AQI] are fighting it out with the locals. I expect the strikes to happen.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[/quote]
You don’t call or write and then think you can just come trouncing in here spouting logic? The nerve.[/quote]
haha what can I say, my late-night booty calls cut right to the chase
The Onion, as always, brings clarity to the discussion.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Well…it looks like ol’ Dub was right.[/quote]
Actually, the Bush administration never made the claim that Iraq’s WMDs were moved to Syria, at least not after about 2004. In fact, Bush and his administration were partly, probably even majorly, responsible for the formation of the Iraq Survey Group which released in 2004 what is known as the Duelfer Report, which can be found here along with an addendum released in 2005:
Volume 1: http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0001156395.pdf
Volume 2:
Volume 3:
This is the Key Findings portion of the report, which mostly summarizes the report:
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
The short version is that they found no real evidence that Iraqi WMDs were transferred to Syria, although they did mention that they could not rule it out 100%, but that it was very unlikely and any evidence that WMDs were transferred to Syria was sketchy, unreliable, or unverifiable at best. Oh, and Syria has had the capability to manufacture their own chemical weapons for several decades now, at the very least since the late 1980’s/early 1990’s:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Well…it looks like ol’ Dub was right.[/quote]
Actually, the Bush administration never made the claim that Iraq’s WMDs were moved to Syria, at least not after about 2004. In fact, Bush and his administration were partly, probably even majorly, responsible for the formation of the Iraq Survey Group which released in 2004 what is known as the Duelfer Report, which can be found here along with an addendum released in 2005:
Volume 1: http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0001156395.pdf
Volume 2:
Volume 3:
This is the Key Findings portion of the report, which mostly summarizes the report:
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
The short version is that they found no real evidence that Iraqi WMDs were transferred to Syria, although they did mention that they could not rule it out 100%, but that it was very unlikely and any evidence that WMDs were transferred to Syria was sketchy, unreliable, or unverifiable at best. Oh, and Syria has had the capability to manufacture their own chemical weapons for several decades now, at the very least since the late 1980’s/early 1990’s:
http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/diab51.pdf[/quote]
I believe the point is, if Iraq was to move the WMD’s out of the country ahead of the U.S. where is the most logical choice?
Historical enemy Iran, U.S. ally Saudi Arabia or Syria?
And just because Syria had the capacity to produce chemical weapons, why would that preclude them from taking on more?
Shit we produced enough chemical weapons and nukes to kill the whole world 10x over.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I believe the point is, if Iraq was to move the WMD’s out of the country ahead of the U.S. where is the most logical choice?
Historical enemy Iran, U.S. ally Saudi Arabia or Syria?[/quote]
No that is not the point, the point is that the claim that the Bush administration said Iraq’s WMDs are in Syria is false. The Bush administration formed their opinions based largely on the Duelfer Report that I just posted, and it came to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that the WMDs were moved to Syria, if they existed at all, and they found very little evidence that they did. In fact, they found out that the main source of information on the WMDs, Rafid Ahmad Alwan (aka curveball) lied to get political asylum and a burn notice was subsequently issued and more then a few people in the CIA lost their jobs or resigned because of the fiasco for not following up on Alwan’s information properly.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I believe the point is, if Iraq was to move the WMD’s out of the country ahead of the U.S. where is the most logical choice?
Historical enemy Iran, U.S. ally Saudi Arabia or Syria?[/quote]
No that is not the point, the point is that the claim that the Bush administration said Iraq’s WMDs are in Syria is false. The Bush administration formed their opinions based largely on the Duelfer Report that I just posted, and it came to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that the WMDs were moved to Syria, if they existed at all, and they found very little evidence that they did. In fact, they found out that the main source of information on the WMDs, Rafid Ahmad Alwan (aka curveball) lied to get political asylum and a burn notice was subsequently issued and more then a few people in the CIA lost their jobs or resigned because of the fiasco for not following up on Alwan’s information properly.
[/quote]
You sound like you are on the very inside of the intelligence industry…you read all of this someplace or was it told to you by somebody even more inside than an insider?
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I believe the point is, if Iraq was to move the WMD’s out of the country ahead of the U.S. where is the most logical choice?
Historical enemy Iran, U.S. ally Saudi Arabia or Syria?[/quote]
No that is not the point, the point is that the claim that the Bush administration said Iraq’s WMDs are in Syria is false. The Bush administration formed their opinions based largely on the Duelfer Report that I just posted, and it came to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that the WMDs were moved to Syria, if they existed at all, and they found very little evidence that they did. In fact, they found out that the main source of information on the WMDs, Rafid Ahmad Alwan (aka curveball) lied to get political asylum and a burn notice was subsequently issued and more then a few people in the CIA lost their jobs or resigned because of the fiasco for not following up on Alwan’s information properly.
[/quote]
You sound like you are on the very inside of the intelligence industry…you read all of this someplace or was it told to you by somebody even more inside than an insider?[/quote]
I am not in any way, shape or form, now or in the past affiliated with any intelligence agency.
It is well known on this site that I am a physics professor. All the information I have came from reading actual documents, which I posted links to and following politics very closely, including what people in power actually say and do, not just what some journalist or celebrity says they said or did. Bush has openly stated that the information on WMDs was false:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
…it is very unlikely that the WMDs were moved to Syria, if they existed at all, and they found very little evidence that they did…
[/quote]
Yeah, you’re probably right. These Kurdish casualties most likely came from adding fluoride to the drinking water in northern Iraq. Or maybe it was high fructose corn syrup.
“Chemical Ali” was set up. Everybody’s that anybody knows that.[/quote]
I never claimed that Iraq never had WMDs, or that Halabja never occurred.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I believe the point is, if Iraq was to move the WMD’s out of the country ahead of the U.S. where is the most logical choice?
Historical enemy Iran, U.S. ally Saudi Arabia or Syria?[/quote]
No that is not the point, the point is that the claim that the Bush administration said Iraq’s WMDs are in Syria is false. The Bush administration formed their opinions based largely on the Duelfer Report that I just posted, and it came to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that the WMDs were moved to Syria, if they existed at all, and they found very little evidence that they did. In fact, they found out that the main source of information on the WMDs, Rafid Ahmad Alwan (aka curveball) lied to get political asylum and a burn notice was subsequently issued and more then a few people in the CIA lost their jobs or resigned because of the fiasco for not following up on Alwan’s information properly.
[/quote]
You sound like you are on the very inside of the intelligence industry…you read all of this someplace or was it told to you by somebody even more inside than an insider?[/quote]
I am not in any way, shape or form, now or in the past affiliated with any intelligence agency.
It is well known on this site that I am a physics professor. All the information I have came from reading actual documents, which I posted links to and following politics very closely, including what people in power actually say and do, not just what some journalist or celebrity says they said or did. Bush has openly stated that the information on WMDs was false:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/02/george-bush-iraq-interview[/quote]
I was joking Doc…it would seem that you have a solid background.
However, people always look through things with a tinted lense…my self included.
Would you agree?
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
…it is very unlikely that the WMDs were moved to Syria, if they existed at all, and they found very little evidence that they did…
[/quote]
Yeah, you’re probably right. These Kurdish casualties most likely came from adding fluoride to the drinking water in northern Iraq. Or maybe it was high fructose corn syrup.
“Chemical Ali” was set up. Everybody’s that anybody knows that.[/quote]
I never claimed that Iraq never had WMDs
[/quote]
Wut about this tho?
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
The Bush administration formed their opinions based largely on the Duelfer Report that I just posted, and it came to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that the WMDs were moved to Syria, if they existed at all, and they found very little evidence that they did.
[/quote]
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
…it is very unlikely that the WMDs were moved to Syria, if they existed at all, and they found very little evidence that they did…
[/quote]
Yeah, you’re probably right. These Kurdish casualties most likely came from adding fluoride to the drinking water in northern Iraq. Or maybe it was high fructose corn syrup.
“Chemical Ali” was set up. Everybody’s that anybody knows that.[/quote]
I never claimed that Iraq never had WMDs
[/quote]
Wut about this tho?
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
The Bush administration formed their opinions based largely on the Duelfer Report that I just posted, and it came to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that the WMDs were moved to Syria, if they existed at all, and they found very little evidence that they did.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I was talking to the claims about Iraq’s WMD capabilities during the time period around the second Iraq war since that is the time period in question, and the purpose of the Duelfer Report. It is well known that Iraq had several WMD programs up until the end of the first gulf war and that the vast majority of those were destroyed (up to 95% verified), hence why we could not find them. I really can’t believe this needed to be explained.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
…it is very unlikely that the WMDs were moved to Syria, if they existed at all, and they found very little evidence that they did…
[/quote]
Yeah, you’re probably right. These Kurdish casualties most likely came from adding fluoride to the drinking water in northern Iraq. Or maybe it was high fructose corn syrup.
“Chemical Ali” was set up. Everybody’s that anybody knows that.[/quote]
I never claimed that Iraq never had WMDs
[/quote]
Wut about this tho?
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
The Bush administration formed their opinions based largely on the Duelfer Report that I just posted, and it came to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that the WMDs were moved to Syria, if they existed at all, and they found very little evidence that they did.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I was talking to the claims about Iraq’s WMD capabilities during the time period around the second Iraq war since that is the time period in question, and the purpose of the Duelfer Report. It is well known that Iraq had several WMD programs up until the end of the first gulf war and that the vast majority of those were destroyed (up to 95% verified), hence why we could not find them. I really can’t believe this needed to be explained.
[/quote]
Jewbacca has ties to the Israeli Intelligence community or maybe just has friends, but he has stated several times in the past there are photos of Iraq wmds crossing into Syria. The Israelis believe Iraq’s chemical weapons were moved into Syria.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
…it is very unlikely that the WMDs were moved to Syria, if they existed at all, and they found very little evidence that they did…
[/quote]
Yeah, you’re probably right. These Kurdish casualties most likely came from adding fluoride to the drinking water in northern Iraq. Or maybe it was high fructose corn syrup.
“Chemical Ali” was set up. Everybody’s that anybody knows that.[/quote]
I never claimed that Iraq never had WMDs
[/quote]
Wut about this tho?
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
The Bush administration formed their opinions based largely on the Duelfer Report that I just posted, and it came to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that the WMDs were moved to Syria, if they existed at all, and they found very little evidence that they did.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I was talking to the claims about Iraq’s WMD capabilities during the time period around the second Iraq war since that is the time period in question, and the purpose of the Duelfer Report. It is well known that Iraq had several WMD programs up until the end of the first gulf war and that the vast majority of those were destroyed (up to 95% verified), hence why we could not find them. I really can’t believe this needed to be explained.
[/quote]
Jewbacca has ties to the Israeli Intelligence community or maybe just has friends, but he has stated several times in the past there are photos of Iraq wmds crossing into Syria. The Israelis believe Iraq’s chemical weapons were moved into Syria.
[/quote]
I know, he and I have discussed this very same matter before.
Iraq’s nuclear program was taken out by Israel in 1980s. If it were to get back to a level where it’d be a legitimate threat for them I’m sure they’d bomb another facility. I think their chemical weapons program was a boogeyman more than anything, it seems like Iraq never really pursued it. They used chemical weapons against Iran and domestically in the 1990s and they were a concern during the Gulf War. I’m sure their facilities and stockpiles had to have been targeted, that and they probably shipped them over the border in the 1990s. By the time the 2000s rolled around I really doubt Iraq had a strong chemical weapons program and whatever they did have was probably 20 years old.
Sure, Saddam was crazy. That doesn’t mean he’d no concept of strategy though. Why put a lot of effort into a chemical weapons program? Chemical weapons killed him after he invaded Kuwait, the reputation of gassing Kurds and Iranians killed his reputation and it’s easy to portray him as a monster. It makes any military action against him easy to gain support for. Would he rather stockpile something that’d come back to hurt him in future conflicts or try to stay in power for as long as possible? He wasn’t stupid.