Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Regarding Syrian and Iraqi relations:
Still, the further establishment of diplomatic relations between these uneasy neighbors has to be seen as a positive sign toward normalcy, especially when considering the recent history between Iraq and Syria.2003: Syria refuses to support any U.N. resolution authorizing war against Iraq.
Syria's relations with Iraq, U.S. - CNN
You obviously didn't do much research.
What happened to Sadam's Air Force during the US invasion? Do you think you can answer
that question?
In 2001 Syria started cooperating with US intelligence in the "War on Terror." That's when the infamous special rendition programs first got going. By 2005, the CIA's special rendition relations with the Assad regime were such a well established fact that this notice was published in the Guardian:
The US embassy in London was forced to issue a correction yesterday to an interview given by the ambassador, Robert Tuttle, in which he claimed America would not fly suspected terrorists to Syria,
Regarding Syrian and Iraqi relations:
Still, the further establishment of diplomatic relations between these uneasy neighbors has to be seen as a positive sign toward normalcy, especially when considering the recent history between Iraq and Syria.2003: Syria refuses to support any U.N. resolution authorizing war against Iraq.
Syria's relations with Iraq, U.S. - CNN
You obviously didn't do much research.
What happened to Sadam's Air Force during the US invasion? Do you think you can answer
that question?
France didn't support our invasion. Are you going to claim the WMD's ended up in France next?
As for Saddam's Air Force, most of it was destroyed in the 1991 war. Some planes went to Iran and were never returned (which probably should have taught Saddam a lesson about letting the other tinpots hold your toys). The few that survived fell into disrepair because they couldn't get spare parts for them.
Now, for Assad
Daily Kos: How the US help put #Assad in power in #Syria
In 2001 Syria started cooperating with US intelligence in the "War on Terror." That's when the infamous special rendition programs first got going. By 2005, the CIA's special rendition relations with the Assad regime were such a well established fact that this notice was published in the Guardian:
The US embassy in London was forced to issue a correction yesterday to an interview given by the ambassador, Robert Tuttle, in which he claimed America would not fly suspected terrorists to Syria,
Regarding Syrian and Iraqi relations:
Still, the further establishment of diplomatic relations between these uneasy neighbors has to be seen as a positive sign toward normalcy, especially when considering the recent history between Iraq and Syria.2003: Syria refuses to support any U.N. resolution authorizing war against Iraq.
Syria's relations with Iraq, U.S. - CNN
You obviously didn't do much research.
What happened to Sadam's Air Force during the US invasion? Do you think you can answer
that question?
France didn't support our invasion. Are you going to claim the WMD's ended up in France next?
As for Saddam's Air Force, most of it was destroyed in the 1991 war. Some planes went to Iran and were never returned (which probably should have taught Saddam a lesson about letting the other tinpots hold your toys). The few that survived fell into disrepair because they couldn't get spare parts for them.
Now, for Assad
Daily Kos: How the US help put #Assad in power in #Syria
In 2001 Syria started cooperating with US intelligence in the "War on Terror." That's when the infamous special rendition programs first got going. By 2005, the CIA's special rendition relations with the Assad regime were such a well established fact that this notice was published in the Guardian:
The US embassy in London was forced to issue a correction yesterday to an interview given by the ambassador, Robert Tuttle, in which he claimed America would not fly suspected terrorists to Syria,
The Daily KOS is a nasty Radical Left Wing piece of human garbage.
It is not a viable source to support any thing.
Look up viable in the Dictionary.
Why did Iraq send their planes to Iran? Sadam gassed the Iranians during the Iraq - Iranian War.
Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)
France didn't support our invasion. Are you going to claim the WMD's ended up in France next?
As for Saddam's Air Force, most of it was destroyed in the 1991 war. Some planes went to Iran and were never returned (which probably should have taught Saddam a lesson about letting the other tinpots hold your toys). The few that survived fell into disrepair because they couldn't get spare parts for them.
Now, for Assad
Daily Kos: How the US help put #Assad in power in #Syria
The Daily KOS is a nasty Radical Left Wing piece of human garbage.
It is not a viable source to support any thing.
Look up viable in the Dictionary.
Why did Iraq send their planes to Iran? Sadam gassed the Iranians during the Iraq - Iranian War.
Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)
If some article isn't making a valid point then refute the point and not the source!
How do you know Iraq sent the aircraft to Iran and the pilots just didn't want to get themselves killed in a battle they knew they couldn't win? If the pilots could have made it to Syria or some other country, maybe they would have went there. Many aircraft were destroyed in their bunkers. You are the idiots who claim WMD was smuggled by land and air out of Iraq, but all of Iraq was a no fly zone for the enemy at the start of the Iraq War and I pointed out that al Qa'im and the road out of Syria was taken early in the fighting.
Take a look at the casualties and loses on both sides for the Iraq War and use the footnotes for the wiki sources!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
The whole reason for war was Iraq was claimed to have WMD, namely chemical and biological weapons and they may provide those weapons to terrorists. The choice to go to war with Iraq meant that the government after Saddam would be unstable, because the government kept the Shiite majority in check. The decision to go to war necessitated the occupation of Iraq after the war, but regardless of that obvious reality and the fact that there was plenty of time before the invasion, no plans were made to assist the Iraqi people, once Iraq was occupied. The Bush administration is on record saying they had no plans for nation building prior to the war and were only interested in the WMD. The obvious power vacuum that the war had to produce was totally ignored. We only lost about a hundred servicemen defeating Iraq, but once Iraq was defeated, the administration completely changed their tune. You don't need a CIA report to know destroying the Iraqi military that kept a Shiite majority in check was going to cause instability to Iraq and Iran being Shiite would take advantage of that instability. Once Iraq was defeated, why didn't we just pull back to that neutral zone area between Iraq and Saudi Arabia?
Now let me point out that what I am doing is called analysis and it isn't mindless bitching. I'm pointing out that even after attacking a country for WMD that didn't exist, that there was another intelligent option other than occupying Iraq. We could have put our troops in a nice safe area that couldn't be attacked, but were close enough to kick the ass of another failed government in Iraq. We could have prevented Iranian expansion into Iraq. Our military is designed to fight wars and it isn't designed to behave as policemen. It was occupying Iraq that caused nearly all of our casualties there and it wasn't necessary from a military standpoint. The only explanation for what we did in occupying Iraq was to try to gain control of their resources. If Iraq produced another bad government, we could blow it off the face of the Earth. When someone keeps coming in and fucking you up, you're going to figure out how to get it right sometime in the future.
Now let me point out that what you people are doing is excusing an obvious fiasco by the Bush administration. There is plenty of evidence that Cheney used raw intelligence about WMD to justify going to war. It's a fact that such WMD Iraq could have had, exists in many countries that are hostile to the United States and we weren't concerned about them. It's a fact that the only reason idiots claim the WMD was smuggled out of Iraq is to justify what Bush did, when what Bush did doesn't make sense on many levels. What Bush and Cheney did is what America gets when fools vote cowards into the highest offices of our land and you know their record was to avoid their own asses going to war. They cared about getting a profit for Halliburton and Big Oil more than Coalition and Iraqi lives. The first thing they did was occupy the oil fields and pipelines, so their motive and behavior should be obvious from the beginning of the war. They wanted control of Iraqi resources and used WMD as an excuse for a war that should have never been fought. Would al Qaeda exist today if we used that amount of military resources and money to defeat it? Why can't you right-wing idiots open up your minds and think for a change?
The Daily KOS is a nasty Radical Left Wing piece of human garbage.
It is not a viable source to support any thing.
Look up viable in the Dictionary.
Why did Iraq send their planes to Iran? Sadam gassed the Iranians during the Iraq - Iranian War.
Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)
If some article isn't making a valid point then refute the point and not the source!
How do you know Iraq sent the aircraft to Iran and the pilots just didn't want to get themselves killed in a battle they knew they couldn't win? If the pilots could have made it to Syria or some other country, maybe they would have went there. Many aircraft were destroyed in their bunkers. You are the idiots who claim WMD was smuggled by land and air out of Iraq, but all of Iraq was a no fly zone for the enemy at the start of the Iraq War and I pointed out that al Qa'im and the road out of Syria was taken early in the fighting.
Take a look at the casualties and loses on both sides for the Iraq War and use the footnotes for the wiki sources!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
The whole reason for war was Iraq was claimed to have WMD, namely chemical and biological weapons and they may provide those weapons to terrorists. The choice to go to war with Iraq meant that the government after Saddam would be unstable, because the government kept the Shiite majority in check. The decision to go to war necessitated the occupation of Iraq after the war, but regardless of that obvious reality and the fact that there was plenty of time before the invasion, no plans were made to assist the Iraqi people, once Iraq was occupied. The Bush administration is on record saying they had no plans for nation building prior to the war and were only interested in the WMD. The obvious power vacuum that the war had to produce was totally ignored. We only lost about a hundred servicemen defeating Iraq, but once Iraq was defeated, the administration completely changed their tune. You don't need a CIA report to know destroying the Iraqi military that kept a Shiite majority in check was going to cause instability to Iraq and Iran being Shiite would take advantage of that instability. Once Iraq was defeated, why didn't we just pull back to that neutral zone area between Iraq and Saudi Arabia?
Now let me point out that what I am doing is called analysis and it isn't mindless bitching. I'm pointing out that even after attacking a country for WMD that didn't exist, that there was another intelligent option other than occupying Iraq. We could have put our troops in a nice safe area that couldn't be attacked, but were close enough to kick the ass of another failed government in Iraq. We could have prevented Iranian expansion into Iraq. Our military is designed to fight wars and it isn't designed to behave as policemen. It was occupying Iraq that caused nearly all of our casualties there and it wasn't necessary from a military standpoint. The only explanation for what we did in occupying Iraq was to try to gain control of their resources. If Iraq produced another bad government, we could blow it off the face of the Earth. When someone keeps coming in and fucking you up, you're going to figure out how to get it right sometime in the future.
Now let me point out that what you people are doing is excusing an obvious fiasco by the Bush administration. There is plenty of evidence that Cheney used raw intelligence about WMD to justify going to war. It's a fact that such WMD Iraq could have had, exists in many countries that are hostile to the United States and we weren't concerned about them. It's a fact that the only reason idiots claim the WMD was smuggled out of Iraq is to justify what Bush did, when what Bush did doesn't make sense on many levels. What Bush and Cheney did is what America gets when fools vote cowards into the highest offices of our land and you know their record was to avoid their own asses going to war. They cared about getting a profit for Halliburton and Big Oil more than Coalition and Iraqi lives. The first thing they did was occupy the oil fields and pipelines, so their motive and behavior should be obvious from the beginning of the war. They wanted control of Iraqi resources and used WMD as an excuse for a war that should have never been fought. Would al Qaeda exist today if we used that amount of military resources and money to defeat it? Why can't you right-wing idiots open up your minds and think for a change?
Typical leftwing unsubstantiated bull crap. You presented no viable sources.
Therefore, you present nothing but your personal rantings. And you expect rational people to take you seriously? The only place it makes sense is in the delusional world you live in.
Daily Kos?Regarding Syrian and Iraqi relations:
Still, the further establishment of diplomatic relations between these uneasy neighbors has to be seen as a positive sign toward normalcy, especially when considering the recent history between Iraq and Syria.2003: Syria refuses to support any U.N. resolution authorizing war against Iraq.
Syria's relations with Iraq, U.S. - CNN
You obviously didn't do much research.
What happened to Sadam's Air Force during the US invasion? Do you think you can answer
that question?
France didn't support our invasion. Are you going to claim the WMD's ended up in France next?
As for Saddam's Air Force, most of it was destroyed in the 1991 war. Some planes went to Iran and were never returned (which probably should have taught Saddam a lesson about letting the other tinpots hold your toys). The few that survived fell into disrepair because they couldn't get spare parts for them.
Now, for Assad
Daily Kos: How the US help put #Assad in power in #Syria
In 2001 Syria started cooperating with US intelligence in the "War on Terror." That's when the infamous special rendition programs first got going. By 2005, the CIA's special rendition relations with the Assad regime were such a well established fact that this notice was published in the Guardian:
The US embassy in London was forced to issue a correction yesterday to an interview given by the ambassador, Robert Tuttle, in which he claimed America would not fly suspected terrorists to Syria,
Daily Kos?Regarding Syrian and Iraqi relations:
Still, the further establishment of diplomatic relations between these uneasy neighbors has to be seen as a positive sign toward normalcy, especially when considering the recent history between Iraq and Syria.2003: Syria refuses to support any U.N. resolution authorizing war against Iraq.
Syria's relations with Iraq, U.S. - CNN
You obviously didn't do much research.
What happened to Sadam's Air Force during the US invasion? Do you think you can answer
that question?
France didn't support our invasion. Are you going to claim the WMD's ended up in France next?
As for Saddam's Air Force, most of it was destroyed in the 1991 war. Some planes went to Iran and were never returned (which probably should have taught Saddam a lesson about letting the other tinpots hold your toys). The few that survived fell into disrepair because they couldn't get spare parts for them.
Now, for Assad
Daily Kos: How the US help put #Assad in power in #Syria
In 2001 Syria started cooperating with US intelligence in the "War on Terror." That's when the infamous special rendition programs first got going. By 2005, the CIA's special rendition relations with the Assad regime were such a well established fact that this notice was published in the Guardian:
The US embassy in London was forced to issue a correction yesterday to an interview given by the ambassador, Robert Tuttle, in which he claimed America would not fly suspected terrorists to Syria,
Bwahahahhaahahahhaahhaahhahaahahahahhaahahhahahahaaaa!
Christ, liberals are fucking idiots!
Why isn't this question being asked??Where Did Syria?s Chemical Weapons Come From?
Why isn't this question being asked??Where Did Syria?s Chemical Weapons Come From?
DuPont.
[
The Daily KOS is a nasty Radical Left Wing piece of human garbage.
It is not a viable source to support any thing.
Look up viable in the Dictionary.
Why did Iraq send their planes to Iran? Sadam gassed the Iranians during the Iraq - Iranian War.
Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)
Why isn't this question being asked??Where Did Syria?s Chemical Weapons Come From?
DuPont.
Link!
I've posted the sources for precursor chemicals that Syria used to make the chemical weapons. Once chemicals get to the point of being easily made into something bad, then they are controlled substances. Sometimes even the chemicals to make a controlled substance will be made a controlled substance, if it isn't needed for too many other things, but let's face it, controlled substances can always be made from chemicals below any restrictions for their sale. Syria built a pharmaceutical industry to permit itself to get controlled substances, because sometimes they have legitimate purposes. It isn't that hard to make chemical or biological weapons.
If some article isn't making a valid point then refute the point and not the source!
How do you know Iraq sent the aircraft to Iran and the pilots just didn't want to get themselves killed in a battle they knew they couldn't win? If the pilots could have made it to Syria or some other country, maybe they would have went there. Many aircraft were destroyed in their bunkers. You are the idiots who claim WMD was smuggled by land and air out of Iraq, but all of Iraq was a no fly zone for the enemy at the start of the Iraq War and I pointed out that al Qa'im and the road out of Syria was taken early in the fighting.
Take a look at the casualties and loses on both sides for the Iraq War and use the footnotes for the wiki sources!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
The whole reason for war was Iraq was claimed to have WMD, namely chemical and biological weapons and they may provide those weapons to terrorists. The choice to go to war with Iraq meant that the government after Saddam would be unstable, because the government kept the Shiite majority in check. The decision to go to war necessitated the occupation of Iraq after the war, but regardless of that obvious reality and the fact that there was plenty of time before the invasion, no plans were made to assist the Iraqi people, once Iraq was occupied. The Bush administration is on record saying they had no plans for nation building prior to the war and were only interested in the WMD. The obvious power vacuum that the war had to produce was totally ignored. We only lost about a hundred servicemen defeating Iraq, but once Iraq was defeated, the administration completely changed their tune. You don't need a CIA report to know destroying the Iraqi military that kept a Shiite majority in check was going to cause instability to Iraq and Iran being Shiite would take advantage of that instability. Once Iraq was defeated, why didn't we just pull back to that neutral zone area between Iraq and Saudi Arabia?
Now let me point out that what I am doing is called analysis and it isn't mindless bitching. I'm pointing out that even after attacking a country for WMD that didn't exist, that there was another intelligent option other than occupying Iraq. We could have put our troops in a nice safe area that couldn't be attacked, but were close enough to kick the ass of another failed government in Iraq. We could have prevented Iranian expansion into Iraq. Our military is designed to fight wars and it isn't designed to behave as policemen. It was occupying Iraq that caused nearly all of our casualties there and it wasn't necessary from a military standpoint. The only explanation for what we did in occupying Iraq was to try to gain control of their resources. If Iraq produced another bad government, we could blow it off the face of the Earth. When someone keeps coming in and fucking you up, you're going to figure out how to get it right sometime in the future.
Now let me point out that what you people are doing is excusing an obvious fiasco by the Bush administration. There is plenty of evidence that Cheney used raw intelligence about WMD to justify going to war. It's a fact that such WMD Iraq could have had, exists in many countries that are hostile to the United States and we weren't concerned about them. It's a fact that the only reason idiots claim the WMD was smuggled out of Iraq is to justify what Bush did, when what Bush did doesn't make sense on many levels. What Bush and Cheney did is what America gets when fools vote cowards into the highest offices of our land and you know their record was to avoid their own asses going to war. They cared about getting a profit for Halliburton and Big Oil more than Coalition and Iraqi lives. The first thing they did was occupy the oil fields and pipelines, so their motive and behavior should be obvious from the beginning of the war. They wanted control of Iraqi resources and used WMD as an excuse for a war that should have never been fought. Would al Qaeda exist today if we used that amount of military resources and money to defeat it? Why can't you right-wing idiots open up your minds and think for a change?
Typical leftwing unsubstantiated bull crap. You presented no viable sources.
Therefore, you present nothing but your personal rantings. And you expect rational people to take you seriously? The only place it makes sense is in the delusional world you live in.
You want a viable source that proves a negative? There was no WMD and Bush had the option to not occupy Iraq, even after he invaded it. Logic shows that Bush intended on occupying Iraq from the start, because that's what he did and he knew occupying Iraq would be required to guard the oil resources.
DuPont.
Link!
I've posted the sources for precursor chemicals that Syria used to make the chemical weapons. Once chemicals get to the point of being easily made into something bad, then they are controlled substances. Sometimes even the chemicals to make a controlled substance will be made a controlled substance, if it isn't needed for too many other things, but let's face it, controlled substances can always be made from chemicals below any restrictions for their sale. Syria built a pharmaceutical industry to permit itself to get controlled substances, because sometimes they have legitimate purposes. It isn't that hard to make chemical or biological weapons.
So you agree.
Only took me one word.
Typical leftwing unsubstantiated bull crap. You presented no viable sources.
Therefore, you present nothing but your personal rantings. And you expect rational people to take you seriously? The only place it makes sense is in the delusional world you live in.
You want a viable source that proves a negative? There was no WMD and Bush had the option to not occupy Iraq, even after he invaded it. Logic shows that Bush intended on occupying Iraq from the start, because that's what he did and he knew occupying Iraq would be required to guard the oil resources.
Obviously, the definition of a viable source eludes you. You have not provided a viable source proving Sadam's WMDs were not taken to Syria.
You were wrong about the relation ship between Iraq and Syria. It appears you have no idea of the importance of both countries being ruled by the same Muslim sect.
Keep avoiding the research that could prove you wrong. I am done here.
You want a viable source that proves a negative? There was no WMD and Bush had the option to not occupy Iraq, even after he invaded it. Logic shows that Bush intended on occupying Iraq from the start, because that's what he did and he knew occupying Iraq would be required to guard the oil resources.
Obviously, the definition of a viable source eludes you. You have not provided a viable source proving Sadam's WMDs were not taken to Syria.
You were wrong about the relation ship between Iraq and Syria. It appears you have no idea of the importance of both countries being ruled by the same Muslim sect.
Keep avoiding the research that could prove you wrong. I am done here.
The viable source rests in Syria having WMD before the Iraq War and just how viable could Iraq War WMD be now? Did you notice a viable source showing the only road to Syria was cut off early in the war? Did you notice no one will name a specific chemical weapon and hide behind the generalized WMD? Did you notice the motive is to claim this WMD existed for political purposes?
You people claim the WMD existed so you prove it and stop playing that prove a negative game!
Obviously, the definition of a viable source eludes you. You have not provided a viable source proving Sadam's WMDs were not taken to Syria.
You were wrong about the relation ship between Iraq and Syria. It appears you have no idea of the importance of both countries being ruled by the same Muslim sect.
Keep avoiding the research that could prove you wrong. I am done here.
The viable source rests in Syria having WMD before the Iraq War and just how viable could Iraq War WMD be now? Did you notice a viable source showing the only road to Syria was cut off early in the war? Did you notice no one will name a specific chemical weapon and hide behind the generalized WMD? Did you notice the motive is to claim this WMD existed for political purposes?
You people claim the WMD existed so you prove it and stop playing that prove a negative game!
The truck traffic from Iraq to Syria took place prior to the US Invasion. So the road was in good shape
James Clapper, the director of U.S. National Intelligence and formerly the director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, in 2003 cited satellite imagery suggesting materials had been moved out of Iraq in the months before the war.
My own evidence, for what it is worth, is purely anecdotal. As I drove east from Damascus in mid-March 2003 to cross the border into Iraq, my Iraqi Kurdish companion said he had spoken to Kurdish truck drivers who regularly used the road.
They reported an unusual build-up of traffic out of Iraq in previous days. Closed convoys of unmarked trucks, which other drivers were forbidden from approaching or overtaking, had been streaming across the border into Syria.
The Unresolved Mystery of Syria's 'Iraqi' Chemical Weapons - NYTimes.com
This is what I said in post #4
-Assad and his father for decades had the resources and strong ties to their allies, mainly Iran and also North Korea, they had the ability and resources to develop their own stockpiles.
It is possible that Hussein as the war approached moved some of the WMD materials to Syria, there are some reports about that but the information is not conclusive.-
But the fact that Iraq had chemical or biological weapons when it was invaded is a possibility, chemical weapon don't dissapear POOF!!!! in the air.
But as has been shown time and time and time and time again to you idiots, any sarin precursors Hussein may or may not have had do have a shelf life that expired at least five years ago. So let it penetrate your thick skulls that Syria did not get its existing sarin from Saddam Hussein. If you were actually interested in the truth, you would.
You all are getting very tiresome.
Saddam also had mustard gas and the nerve agents tabun and VX ...apart from sarin.
If you feel tired go to sleep.
According to Ritter, the chemical weapons which Iraq has been known to possess -- nerve agents like sarin and tabun -- have a shelf life of five years, VX just a bit longer. Saddam's major bio weapons are hardly any better; botulinum toxin is potent for about three years, and liquid anthrax about the same (under the right conditions).
But the truth of the matter is that Iraq’s WMD may have even less of a shelf life than Ritter now claims -- and the U.S. government knows it.
The U.S. Defense Department’s “Militarily Critical Technologies List” (MCTL) is “a detailed compendium of technologies" that the department advocates as “critical to maintaining superior US military capabilities. It applies to all mission areas, especially counter-proliferation.” Written in 1998, it was recently re-published with updates for 2002.
So what is the MCTL’s opinion of Iraq's chemical weapons program? In making its chemical nerve agents, “The Iraqis . . . produce[d] a . . . mixture which was inherently unstable,” says the report. “When the Iraqis produced chemical munitions they appeared to adhere to a ‘make and use’ regimen. Judging by the information Iraq gave the United Nations, later verified by on-site inspections, Iraq had poor product quality for their nerve agents. This low quality was likely due to a lack of purification. They had to get the agent to the front promptly or have it degrade in the munition.”
Furthermore, says this Defense Department report, “The chemical munitions found in Iraq after the [first] Gulf War contained badly deteriorated agents and a significant proportion were visibly leaking.” The shelf life of these poorly made agents were said to be a few weeks at best -- hardly the stuff of vast chemical weapons stores.
