[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Or (more on the topic of WMD actually existing in Iraq) look at the Wikileak documents that confirmed WMD being found in Iraq:
Why these were not news in the USA shows how news that does not fit a media template is autmoatically rejected.
Edit: better link
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/[/quote]
And those reports stated that either the labs and agents they found were either in disrepair and extremely old or came from Iran, and I saw nothing about Syria. I am not and have not denied the existence of WMDs, I am questioning the validity of reports that these WMDs were moved to Syria without anyone knowing until 2006.
EDIT: Also, those articles you provided also stated that the WMDs that were uncovered were nowhere near on the scale that the Bush administration claimed.[/quote]
Wow, what a moving target of evidence you have. I don’t care about Bush.
Look, the amounts of WMD in Iraq were large – at one time. The Iraqis kept good records of what they produced, so you have a starting point.
Two things happened: destroyed or shipped away. (Or used, and some were used on Iran, but not nearly all of them).
Now, if Saddam destroyed his WMDs, he would have filmed the process, invited observers, etc, as he was under immense pressure to destroy his WMD. He understood propaganda and the media. So if he went the “destroy” route, you can be damnned sure the media would have known about it.
Moreover, destruction of chemical weapons leave a lot of clues as to what went on. All sorts of nasty organics that last near forever. And they are very easy to detect.
For example, the USA burned its chemical weapons in Georgia. The jet stream caught the well-burned smoke and set off chemical weapon detectors — in Israel. In short, if the stuff was destroyed — as opposed to shipped somewhere — there would be ample evidence of destruction that a scientist could verify. Big nasty EPA clean-up sites.
In contrast, your statement that moving a large amount of chemical weapons would leave a trace is false. WMDs (that have not gone off) really don’t leave huge trails behind them.
Why so little evidence? Because if they left traces, they would be ineffective weapons that kills the user. Phosgene and the other crap involved kills in the millionths of a gram. An effective WMD seals that shit up very, very, very well until you need it to get out. So moved WMDs should not leave much of a trail. (Well, unless you fuck up, then you’d have lots of dead people.) It’s not in 55 gallon drums. It’s in quadruple-sealed ceramic balls inside plastic containers inside titanium shells.
All you could expect – if you get lucky — are some scraps left behind, which is exactly what was found.
In short, the lack of destroyed WMD, together with the hastily-evaced labs found, is very good evidence this stuff was moved.[/quote]
I was referring to the size of the convoy needed to move the amount of weapons that Iraq was claimed to have, not any chemical evidence left. Let us assume for the sake of this discussion that the intelligence reports were accurate. If you found where massive amounts of WMDs were being produced and stored, would you just leave and not monitor those sites at all, not even passively?
So, let us also assume that these same intelligence agencies are not so incompetent as to stop all monitoring of these facilities and hope that Saddam just leaves them there instead of hiding them or using them. I think that is a fair assumption.
Now, these caravans are reported to have taken place over a few months in 2002, just as the US was planning its invasion, so intelligence activities in Iraq were greatly increased and it was also reported that the US was aware of these caravans. Somewhere along the line, these storage facilities were gutted and something was done with the WMDs. Do you really think that nobody followed up on these caravans that went to Syria, as well as the ones that went to Iran? I do not deny that WMDs of some kind existed, although the amount is in question, I am saying that the evidence does not seem to point to these weapons being transported to Syria. Keeping the transport of the amount of WMDs that are being claimed here without some of the most sophisticated intelligence agencies in the world knowing, who are actively gathering intelligence on these WMDs, takes a lot more subtlety then caravans like the ones described.
A couple of generals saying that it happened does not prove that it happened.
EDIT: It is also not known when the WMDs were moved. It could have happened at any time before the facilities were captured.
