Right-Wingers: What's different about Syria?

[NYcarbineer]

Read the Duelfer report.

Why should that be accepted as an authority?

Maybe because it is the official final report of the inspectors?

You mean the report that concluded the following?

Saddam ended his nuclear program in 1991. ISG found no evidence of concerted efforts to restart the program, and Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after 1991.

Iraq destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and only a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered by the ISG.

Saddam's regime abandoned its biological weapons program and its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons in 1995. While it could have re-established an elementary BW program within weeks, ISG discovered no indications it was pursuing such a course.

Okay....

Iraq Survey Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bendog]

■The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

Iraq Survey Group Final Report

Sorting Out Whether Iraq Had WMD Before Operation Iraqi Freedom

ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability. Several senior officers asserted that if Saddam had WMD available when the 2003 war began, he would have used them to avoid being overrun by Coalition forces.


■‘Amir Hamudi Hasan Al Sa’adi told an emissary from the RG leadership, on 27 January 2003, that if Saddam had WMD, he would use it, according to a former officer with direct knowledge of Iraqi military ground operations and planning.

■According to a former senior RG official, Iraq had dismantled or destroyed all of its WMD assets and manufacturing facilities. Had Saddam possessed WMD assets, he would have used them to counter the Coalition invasion.

■If he had CW, Saddam would have used it against Coalition Forces to save the Regime, according to a former senior official.

■Iraqi military planning did not incorporate the use—or even the threat of use—of WMD after 1991, according to ‘Ali Hasan Al Majid. WMD was never part of the military plan crafted to defeat the 2003 Coalition invasion.

Iraq Survey Group Final Report

It's over, let it go. Bushii may not have lied, but cheney and ledeen did. And thousands died. And tens of thousands are maimed.

 

[Borillar]

It's amazing how wingnuts don't see a regime that has used poison gas even further west than Iraq is as not a threat to Israel.

Oops! Forgot! Democratic President!

1. I'm a Democrat, and I'm opposed to military intervention in Syria just like I was against military intervention in Iraq.
2. Israel is fully capable of defending itself against Syria.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What business was it of ours to be in Bosnia and Kosovo?

Is that supposed to be an answer?

Yes, given that Clinton led the bombing campaigns.

Why would you think that would matter to me? Other than because you're an idiot.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Why should that be accepted as an authority?

Maybe because it is the official final report of the inspectors?

You mean the report that concluded the following?

Saddam ended his nuclear program in 1991. ISG found no evidence of concerted efforts to restart the program, and Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after 1991.

Iraq destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and only a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered by the ISG.

Saddam's regime abandoned its biological weapons program and its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons in 1995. While it could have re-established an elementary BW program within weeks, ISG discovered no indications it was pursuing such a course.

Okay....

Iraq Survey Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep that sounds like it...Many people wonder how they came up with that statement after what they wrote in the report... I've read the whole thing..(Though it's been a while) And there is no way I can understand why they would make that statement.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Synthaholic, I will try and answer your question rationally with what I believe and what is my humble opinion. Let me say that I do NOT support the position that Barry and his cronies have pushed for in Syria and I believe that the differences between Iraq and Syria are stark indeed.

Regardless of what you on the left want to say now, everyone from President Clinton, the Senator from New York Hillary Clinton, and many, many others had said that Hussien had violated the 91 treaty over and over again and posed a clear and present danger. Clinton had launched cruise missles into Iraq and had tasked the US Air Force in enforcing the 'no fly zone' over Iraq. A number of Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries had been attacked and destroyed by our planes for 'painting' them with fire control radar. President Clinton had done everything BUT invade and I suppored President Clintons actions.

The intelligence from the time of Clinton and Bush (pre-invasion) was clear, and President Clinton had referenced this intelligence in national speeches. He was doing everything in his power to reconstitute his WMD's and we already KNEW that he would use them if given the chance. The British, the French, the Israeli's, and everyone else said they were convinced of his attempts to reconstitute those weapons. He had already attacked the Kurds in 91 and 92 with VX nerve gas (as verified by the UN). Intel estimates from the Clinton era gave him VX, mustard and ricin. Additionally, there was NO civil war in Iraq, although attempts had been made (possibly the reason for the Kurds being gassed).

The United Nations Security Council had passed a number of resolutions regarding Iraq and the last resolution gave authority to 'force' Hussien to comply with the terms of his surrender in 91. The United States Congress had voted to give President Bush authority to do what was necessary in Iraq.

The USS Cole was attacked and Hussien gave money to the families of the terrorists who did the attack. The families of the terrorists who attacked American embassies in Africa were also given money by Hussien. He did everything in his power to undermine and attack our national interests in not only the middle east but other nations around the world. Hussien had given speech after speech advising that he was going to attack US interests across the region and exact revenge for the 91 war.

In Syria, there is no UN resolution. There is no congressional approval. There have been no treaties with Syria for them to violate (they are NOT a signatory of the chemical weapons treaty). Syria is in the middle of a civil war that is two years old and the UN estimates that as many as 100,000 people have been killed. There are over 2 million refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and elsewhere. On one side is Assad and his army and on the other is the VERY SAME people (Al Queda, who we are at war with) who call for the beheadings of Christians and Americans. You even have videos of them beheading a Catholic priest and others.

Barry has displayed ZERO leadership in this issue and quite frankly I have to say that he looks weak, disorganized and now he wants to deploy a military that he has decimated, cut back, and is on the road to destroying (refer to carrier battle groups, ICBM's and active Army brigades)? Talk about a recipe for getting American military men and women killed. Even the members of his own party have publicly opposed any intervention in Syria because it is NOT in American interests.

I absolutely agree that we should NOT have tried to rebuild Iraq. Staying there for almost ten years and spending all that money was stupid. When you fight someone you kick their ass and then you leave! Syria is NOT our concern. Until Syria becomes an imminent threat to the US OR takes overt action to attack American national interests, leave them alone.

P.S. One year since the Benghazi attacks and the people who DID attack and kill an American Ambassador sit in a Libyan cafe drinking coffee talking to CNN. And you believe this President is capable of leading this nation? Really?

 

[SFC Ollie]

■The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

Iraq Survey Group Final Report

Sorting Out Whether Iraq Had WMD Before Operation Iraqi Freedom

ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability. Several senior officers asserted that if Saddam had WMD available when the 2003 war began, he would have used them to avoid being overrun by Coalition forces.


■‘Amir Hamudi Hasan Al Sa’adi told an emissary from the RG leadership, on 27 January 2003, that if Saddam had WMD, he would use it, according to a former officer with direct knowledge of Iraqi military ground operations and planning.

■According to a former senior RG official, Iraq had dismantled or destroyed all of its WMD assets and manufacturing facilities. Had Saddam possessed WMD assets, he would have used them to counter the Coalition invasion.

■If he had CW, Saddam would have used it against Coalition Forces to save the Regime, according to a former senior official.

■Iraqi military planning did not incorporate the use—or even the threat of use—of WMD after 1991, according to ‘Ali Hasan Al Majid. WMD was never part of the military plan crafted to defeat the 2003 Coalition invasion.

Iraq Survey Group Final Report

It's over, let it go. Bushii may not have lied, but cheney and ledeen did. And thousands died. And tens of thousands are maimed.

The Regime employed a cadre of trained and experienced researchers, production managers, and weaponization experts from the former CW program.
Iraq began implementing a range of indigenous chemical production projects in 1995 and 1996. Many of these projects, while not weapons-related, were designed to improve Iraq’s infrastructure, which would have enhanced Iraq’s ability to produce CW agents if the scaled-up production processes were implemented.
Iraq had an effective system for the procurement of items that Iraq was not allowed to acquire due to sanctions. ISG found no evidence that this system was used to acquire precursor chemicals in bulk; however documents indicate that dual-use laboratory equipment and chemicals were acquired through this system
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html

 

[Spoonman]

What is the difference in rationale between Iraq and Syria?

• Dictator/Tyrant has WMD capability
• Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
• Danger to Israel
• De-stabilize ME

Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.

so why don't you left wing hypocrites make Syria about the oil instead of trying to bullshit us you actually care about syrians?

 

[Claudette]

Synthaholic, I will try and answer your question rationally with what I believe and what is my humble opinion. Let me say that I do NOT support the position that Barry and his cronies have pushed for in Syria and I believe that the differences between Iraq and Syria are stark indeed.

Regardless of what you on the left want to say now, everyone from President Clinton, the Senator from New York Hillary Clinton, and many, many others had said that Hussien had violated the 91 treaty over and over again and posed a clear and present danger. Clinton had launched cruise missles into Iraq and had tasked the US Air Force in enforcing the 'no fly zone' over Iraq. A number of Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries had been attacked and destroyed by our planes for 'painting' them with fire control radar. President Clinton had done everything BUT invade and I suppored President Clintons actions.

The intelligence from the time of Clinton and Bush (pre-invasion) was clear, and President Clinton had referenced this intelligence in national speeches. He was doing everything in his power to reconstitute his WMD's and we already KNEW that he would use them if given the chance. The British, the French, the Israeli's, and everyone else said they were convinced of his attempts to reconstitute those weapons. He had already attacked the Kurds in 91 and 92 with VX nerve gas (as verified by the UN). Intel estimates from the Clinton era gave him VX, mustard and ricin. Additionally, there was NO civil war in Iraq, although attempts had been made (possibly the reason for the Kurds being gassed).

The United Nations Security Council had passed a number of resolutions regarding Iraq and the last resolution gave authority to 'force' Hussien to comply with the terms of his surrender in 91. The United States Congress had voted to give President Bush authority to do what was necessary in Iraq.

The USS Cole was attacked and Hussien gave money to the families of the terrorists who did the attack. The families of the terrorists who attacked American embassies in Africa were also given money by Hussien. He did everything in his power to undermine and attack our national interests in not only the middle east but other nations around the world. Hussien had given speech after speech advising that he was going to attack US interests across the region and exact revenge for the 91 war.

In Syria, there is no UN resolution. There is no congressional approval. There have been no treaties with Syria for them to violate (they are NOT a signatory of the chemical weapons treaty). Syria is in the middle of a civil war that is two years old and the UN estimates that as many as 100,000 people have been killed. There are over 2 million refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and elsewhere. On one side is Assad and his army and on the other is the VERY SAME people (Al Queda, who we are at war with) who call for the beheadings of Christians and Americans. You even have videos of them beheading a Catholic priest and others.

Barry has displayed ZERO leadership in this issue and quite frankly I have to say that he looks weak, disorganized and now he wants to deploy a military that he has decimated, cut back, and is on the road to destroying (refer to carrier battle groups, ICBM's and active Army brigades)? Talk about a recipe for getting American military men and women killed. Even the members of his own party have publicly opposed any intervention in Syria because it is NOT in American interests.

I absolutely agree that we should NOT have tried to rebuild Iraq. Staying there for almost ten years and spending all that money was stupid. When you fight someone you kick their ass and then you leave! Syria is NOT our concern. Until Syria becomes an imminent threat to the US OR takes overt action to attack American national interests, leave them alone.

P.S. One year since the Benghazi attacks and the people who DID attack and kill an American Ambassador sit in a Libyan cafe drinking coffee talking to CNN. And you believe this President is capable of leading this nation? Really?

Bingo. Great post and right the fuck on my friend.

 

[bendog]

But the stubborn fact remains, Saddam had not reconstituted his programs, CONTRARY to what Bushii claimed at the UN, and no sizeable quantity of gas was ever identified.

But aside from that, 4Kplus dead, tens of thousands maimed and around three trillion dollars, it was a glorious war. and THAT's what's changed.

 

[DiamondDave]

Does that mean you had your head up Bush's ass?

What's the difference?

If you want to go back and learn the truth, We had cause to go after Saddam, I was all for taking him out while we were there in 91, I was only a few hundred miles from Baghdad myself... But when Bush allowed Rumsfeld to screw it up and turn it into an occupation, I was totally against it...

The difference? Once again, any damage we do to Assad only helps AQ...

Not in 2003, we didn't.

Yes.. we did... violation of cease fire all along gave us that before and up to 2003

 

[kaz]

What is the difference in rationale between Iraq and Syria?

• Dictator/Tyrant has WMD capability
• Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
• Danger to Israel
• De-stabilize ME

Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.

so why don't you left wing hypocrites make Syria about the oil instead of trying to bullshit us you actually care about syrians?

Don't you love liberals who opposed W saying we have to do this because it's W's criteria?

 

[Borillar]

What is the difference in rationale between Iraq and Syria?

• Dictator/Tyrant has WMD capability
• Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
• Danger to Israel
• De-stabilize ME

Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.

so why don't you left wing hypocrites make Syria about the oil instead of trying to bullshit us you actually care about syrians?

Syria doesn't have any oil. That said, there isn't any real valid reason to get involved there militarily. Just do some hand wringing and stern denunciations in the UN and be done with it.

 

[bendog]

If you want to go back and learn the truth, We had cause to go after Saddam, I was all for taking him out while we were there in 91, I was only a few hundred miles from Baghdad myself... But when Bush allowed Rumsfeld to screw it up and turn it into an occupation, I was totally against it...

The difference? Once again, any damage we do to Assad only helps AQ...

Not in 2003, we didn't.

Yes.. we did... violation of cease fire all along gave us that before and up to 2003

A possibly legally justifiable causi belli is not the same as a need to cause a war that kills hundreds of thousands. Legally, we could probably bomb syria, though I think its a bad idea.

 

[kaz]

What is the difference in rationale between Iraq and Syria?

• Dictator/Tyrant has WMD capability
• Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
• Danger to Israel
• De-stabilize ME

Right-Wing refusal to back strikes proves that Iraq really was only about controlling the oil.

so why don't you left wing hypocrites make Syria about the oil instead of trying to bullshit us you actually care about syrians?

Syria doesn't have any oil. That said, there isn't any real valid reason to get involved there militarily. Just do some hand wringing and stern denunciations in the UN and be done with it.

Actually oil is a huge issue in Syria. Syria blocked an oil pipeline from Qatar that would have fed Europe. The Russians already have one and are building a second one that would be fed with Russian and Iranian oil and they didn't want the Qatar pipeline so they could dominate European oil.

Remember Syria is Shiite and Iran is Shiite. If the government falls, then a Sunni government probably will allow a Qatar, which is Sunni, pipeline. The reasons that Iran oppose the fall of Syria span not only religion but oil. Once you start to understand the pieces, the puzzle becomes clearer.

 

[Synthaholic]

Oil.

Oil is the life blood of our civilization. Without it, we die. Without it, you die.

Oil is the most precious commodity on Earth. More important that money, more important than land, more important than food, more important than water, more important than anything else on this Earth.

I'd say that's an "interest" wouldn't you? Or are you too stupid to think that far ahead?

Name me something in your life that doesn't depend on oil.

Go for it. Tell me how we survive without oil. Tell me what becomes of us without oil.

How do we survive without oil?

We don't

Native Americans are laughing their asses off at you right now.

So are every third world country.

The US is not a third world country and we are not about to go back to living in teepees and mud huts.

True, but comments like:

Tell me how we survive without oil. Tell me what becomes of us without oil.

How do we survive without oil?

Without it, we die. Without it, you die.

...are a bit hysterical. And not in a funny way.

 

[Spoonman]

Native Americans are laughing their asses off at you right now.

So are every third world country.

The US is not a third world country and we are not about to go back to living in teepees and mud huts.

True, but comments like:

Tell me how we survive without oil. Tell me what becomes of us without oil.

How do we survive without oil?

Without it, we die. Without it, you die.

...are a bit hysterical. And not in a funny way.

have you given up your dependence on oil?

 

[Synthaholic]

It's amazing how wingnuts don't see a regime that has used poison gas even further west than Iraq is as not a threat to Israel.

Oops! Forgot! Democratic President!

1. I'm a Democrat, and I'm opposed to military intervention in Syria just like I was against military intervention in Iraq.
2. Israel is fully capable of defending itself against Syria.

Did you argue in 2003 that we needed to go into Iraq to protect Israel? I doubt it.

But wingnuts did.

 

[Contumacious]

[Oh, I agree entirely. It was in our interests to intervene when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Oil is the sole reason we did involve ourselves there.

Is Kuwait US soil?

So what "interests " are you referring to?

.

Oil is our economic lifeblood. The free flow of oil from the Mideast is in our national interest. If Kuwait didn't have any oil, do you think we would have gotten involved beyond a stern denunciation in the UN?

So IF oil is so important to our economic well being why are we supporting a Jewish state in the middle of a gazillion Muslims?

Why are we using falsehoods to invade middle eastern oil producing countries?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

 

[bendog]

Is Kuwait US soil?

So what "interests " are you referring to?

.

Oil is our economic lifeblood. The free flow of oil from the Mideast is in our national interest. If Kuwait didn't have any oil, do you think we would have gotten involved beyond a stern denunciation in the UN?

So IF oil is so important to our economic well being why are we supporting a Jewish state in the middle of a gazillion Muslims?

Why are we using falsehoods to invade middle eastern oil producing countries?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

Ike and BusI asked the same, and I used to be a goper.