"iraq`s wmd`s secreted in syria",iraqi general says

[gardenweasel]

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514


i know...it`s only this man`s word....and he didn`t make any claims about nuclear weapons....he`s talking chemical and biological weapons...

i said this was a possibility...it makes some sense..it`s logical....

but,i don`t know how it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt...maybe the guy is just trying to sell some books...

so,it`s some interesting food for thought...

 

[kosar]

Link doesn't work, GW.

 

[AR182]

i still find it amazing that people believe that saddam did not dabble with wmds...

 

[gardenweasel]

i`m sorry guys...i should have double checked it...

it`s working now...

even if you don`t buy it,it`s a very interesting read....

he claims that saddam was very close to a flyover of israel.....with chemical and/or biological weapons....


""The former deputy of the Iraqi air force, General Georges Sada, revealed on Saturday that that former dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, ordered him during the first Gulf War to bomb Israeli population centers with chemical weapons.

The ousted dictator, said Sada in recently published book, Saddam’s secret’s, ordered 96 Russian fighter jets to be armed with chemical weapons and sent to bomb Israel.

According to Sada, who recently served as a national security advisor to the temporary prime minister and was in the midst of a book tour in the US, said he succeeded in convincing Hussein to reconsider his order.

Sada said he convinced Saddam to abort the mission by telling him that the Iraqi pilots could not complete the mission with the equipment at their disposal, and that the Israelis had radar that could detect them before they reached their target.""


if true,scary stuff...

 

[steve2881]

spin it kosar, why does this not surprise me. I will be taking wagers on how many of the mainstream media outlets will be reporting on this...

THE OVER UNDER IS 1...

and no, obviously fox doesn't count.

 

[kosar]

spin it kosar, why does this not surprise me. I will be taking wagers on how many of the mainstream media outlets will be reporting on this...

THE OVER UNDER IS 1...

and no, obviously fox doesn't count.

Spin what?

Is it spinning something to not necessarily beleive something that one guy said just as he has a book rolling out soon?

It took 3 years for anything to come outfrom anyone?

After all the horrible intel we got pre-war from Iraqis with an agenda, are we supposed to totally believe this guy without any evidence other than his words?

My God, some of you guys have no problem being duped over and over again. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case here, but let's see some, any, evidence.

We based going to war on 'testimony' from speedball and Chalobi. Both of their information was utterly inaccurate and self-serving.

Now we jump on this guys info with no corroboration?

Have you ever seen the responses when somebody here posts something from a democrat who is writing a book, or had written one?

I heard parts of this guys interview with Hannity on the radio and I read GW's article. As far as I can tell, this guy never personally saw anything. He supposedly 'heard' from others this and that. That makes it a lot easier when you don't have to substantiate times and places.

Anyways, looks like he's going to Washington to be debriefed. I'm sure we'll hear something if he brings facts and evidence to the table.

Until them, just keep believin'!

 

[steve2881]

Kosar...

Kosar...

what did saddam use in the eighties to kill thousands of hi own citizens??? Bullets??

 

[djv]

No the gas Ronney Reagan sent him. And it's all gone.

 

[steve2881]

No the gas Ronney Reagan sent him. And it's all gone.

does gas count as wmd, i am confused

can you inflict mass destruction with lethal gas...hmmmmmm

 

[kosar]

what did saddam use in the eighties to kill thousands of hi own citizens??? Bullets??

Steve, we've talked about this so much that i'm boring myself, and I hate to think what i'm doing to everyone else.

Yes, he had them, as we were one of his suppliers.

He used them against Iran and possibly against the Kurds. A high leverl CIA agent from that era said all evidence pointed to that being Iranian gas where the Kurds got caught in the crossfire.

Yes, of course he had them at one time.

No, I don't know what happened to them and neither does anybody else.

He had no WMD program from 1991-2003. Verified by every intel agency that has looked into it.

Even if he had them in 2003, so what. I saw in another thread where you said he wouldn't have hesitated in selling WMD to Isalmfascists or surrounding countries. Why in the world would he give that stuff to his bitter enemies within the region? Makes no sense.

And if he 'wouldn't have hesitated', WHY DIDN'T HE DO IT? He not only hesitated, he simply didn't do it.

There was no urgency to invade in 2003. Stockpiles of gas and nerve agents? We were not under the gun because of that. We were not at risk from him.

Now we're toothless because of it and Iran is telling us to f*ck off.

And wouldn't it be ironic if he really *did* give these 'huge' amounts of Syria because of the impending invasion?

My thought, pre and post invasion, is that the whole did he or didn't he have them arguments is totally irrelevant, except politically for those involved.

So they could find all these WMD in Damascus and frankly, I would feel a lot less safe than if they were in Iraq. It sure as hell wouldn't 'justify' anything, although Bush would somehow be helped politically, even though his actions will have provided yet another hated country with stockpiles of WMD. What a trade-off.

 

[steve2881]

kosar, do you think it is, or was, ok for him to have them at anytime??

 

[kosar]

kosar, do you think it is, or was, ok for him to have them at anytime??

Are you kidding me? Is this some sort of joke?

He had them, COMPLIMENTS OF THE US of A, to use against Iran.

Jesus Christ.

 

[Wilson]

Are you kidding me? Is this some sort of joke?

He had them, COMPLIMENTS OF THE US of A, to use against Iran.

Jesus Christ.

The Lord's name in vain. Sinner.

 

[smurphy]

Kosar hates God, hates freedom, and hates America.

.....but he is right, you know.

Bottom line with Saddam - he loved ruling his empire more than anything else. He loved being able to rape and pillage his own people. He was not about to do anything to jeopardize his own personal twisted paradise - like actually use WMD's against Israel or America ...because that would mean the complete anihilation of his utopian existence. He was not the sort of suicidal terrorist that we claim to fighting in our "war on terror". To have seen Iraq and Saddam in any other light was very naive, uneducated, and basically kind of 'wishful thinking' for the sake of having a war against him.

Our reasons for invasion were very stupid. ...Very very stupid. Really a step backwards in the 'War on Terror', because now we are fighting so many more of them. .....And don't give me the crap about "bringing the war to their turf". We were already doing that in Afghanistan.

 

[steve2881]

Kosar...

Kosar...

for me its simple is the united states safer, or less safe, with Saddam ousted?? Don't go into diadiatribe about wmd's, no wmd's. A Yes or No will do.

 

[kosar]

for me its simple is the united states safer, or less safe, with Saddam ousted?? Don't go into diadiatribe about wmd's, no wmd's. A Yes or No will do.

Less safe and it's not close. See: Iran.

 

[kosar]

The Lord's name in vain. Sinner.

My bad Wilson.

 

[steve2881]

Less safe and it's not close. See: Iran.

i disagree, but i respect your opinion, at least you do your research, and can have logical debate

as far as Iran is concerned, It is an extremely dangerous regime, more so than Saddam's, but there have been many dangerous developments there in the last 3-4 years.....we will have to deal with them

 

[smurphy]

I believe smart folks from the right, if they truly look at this without a partisan filter, will mostly give the same answer as commie Kosar. There is no way in hell we are safer because we took Saddam out.

I'll concede that perhaps this leads to something better in the future, but for now we have put ourselves in a much more precarious position than if Iraq was never invaded.

 

[kosar]

as far as Iran is concerned, It is an extremely dangerous regime, more so than Saddam's, but there have been many dangerous developments there in the last 3-4 years.....we will have to deal with them

I guess I don't really understand you here, or you didn't understand what I was saying.

My point was that as a result of our invasion, we are in no position to aggressively pursue Iran in any manner.

That, in large part, is why I feel less safe regarding the future. I probably don't feel any more or less safe today with Saddam gone, but the invasion itself has greatly hampered our ability to deal with actual threats and we might just pay for it if and when Iran completes it's goal of being a nuclear power in 5 or 10 years.

That's why I don't understand you saying 'we will have to deal with them', without realizing that we really have no capacity to do so as a direct result of 'removing Saddam.'

How can that make you feel more safe?