Whats buried in the Iraqi sand box?

Actually most of the evidence of Iraq moving its WMD's to another country leads away from Iran (leads to Syria). Besides; Iraq, and Iran have not had the best of relationships in the past.

[edit on 17-9-2004 by oui]

Yet a lot of Saddam's air force was flown there, at the start of the war....

What sucks about this is if/when they uncover chemical weapons (which Saddam had and used on Iran and his own country more than once), there is going to be a huge group of goofballs screaming that the US planted the evidence of WMD after the fact to support their reason for going to war...

You just know it's going to happen.

...You just know it's going to happen.

It's a real shame too. The problem is; that despite the facts, they'll believe what they want to believe (most of them fueled by their hatred for Bush.). I mean just look at your "747-Pentagon" thread. You can't make it any clearer that a 747 hit the pentagon, yet people still bring up claims of missles, and fighter aircraft... EVEN AFTER READING YOUR THREAD!

Ok, three points...
1. Why would Iraq give Syria its WMDs? If Saddam did have WMDs, wouldnt he have used them if he thought it was he last option? I mean, whats the point of having them if you arent going to use them. Even if it ensured his death, using WMDs against American forces would have made him a hero and a martyr throughout the Middle East.
2. Why would Syria accept them? Wouldnt that just give the Bush administration an excuse to attack them? The only reason that Syria would need WMDs is if they were invaded, and the only reason they would be invaded is if we thought they had WMDs! It just doesnt make sense.
3. As an earlier post said, we have interviewed thousands of Iraqi military personel, and none have know anything about the location of any WMDs! If you were going to hide vast stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, it would be a major operation. Thousands of people would know about it. Plus, considering the reward money offered for info on WMDs, dont you think that people would be begging to give info on them?!

1. Why give Syria your WMD's? Well... If I tell the entire world that I am 100% sure, that you have a stockpile of illegal turkey in your refridgerator... and I intend to invade your home to look for this illegal turkey. It would make me look extremely dumb if that turkey isn't there. The turkey that I was 100% sure you had. In the worlds eye it makes me look like a fanatical lunatic... much like we as a nation look today in the worlds eye... (Illegal turkey? What was I thinking... anyhow, the point still remains the same. No matter how bad the example.)

Giving the WMD's to Syria was just as damaging to the USA, as using them on us. We have damaged relationships with allie countries, and in some cases even killed our relationships with allie countries (France? Perhaps Germany?) all because these WMD's weren't there. Quite effective indeed.


2.Why would Syria accept them? Free WMD's to use. Why WOULDN'T Syria accept them. Syria also has accepted other unknown items, and Iraqi politicians in the past. His sons fled to Syria, and I think at one point (i'm not sure) Saddam has fled to syria in the past too.

3.Actually, If you read all the info posted by Agent47, and seekerof, in that ATS thread I listed, you will find out that some Iraqi officials (they keep on using the term "Iraqi officials" never revealing who, or what the person is.), as well as Syrian defecters have confirmed reports of WMD convoys moving "the goods" into some valley complex(I forget the name of that valley.)

[edit on 17-9-2004 by oui]

The bigger picture here is Isreal.

Giving WMD to Syria keeps that threat in the middle east as a counter to Isreal (more to the point, Isreali nukes and military). While the arab controlled regions of the middle east are fragmented into various goals/beliefs/self-interests, the one thing they all still seem to agree on for some strange reason is "Isreal is their common enemy"...

Iran was a long time foe of Iraq; Saudi Arabia supported the first gulf war, and indirectly supported the second invasion of Iraq; Kuwait is an enemy of Iraq; Turkey is an enemy of Iraq due to the Kurds and their belief that the northern portion of Iraq does not belong to Iraq; Jordan is ran by the most level-headed kindgom in the reagion is more or less the most moderate group of muslims in the area... Syria was Iraq's only real choice if the political powerbrokers in the area wanted to keep WMDs as a potential counter to their perceived enemy Isreal.

Of course, this is all IF Iraq moved their WMD out of the country and didn't just bury them in the same way they buried tanks, planes, and other mobile weapons. They buried Scuds and other weapons in first gulf war, why wouldn't they have done the same the second time around?


[edit on 17-9-2004 by CatHerder]

Originally posted by oui
1. Why give Syria your WMD's? Well... If I tell the entire world that I am 100% sure, that you have a stockpile of illegal turkey in your refridgerator... and I intend to invade your home to look for this illegal turkey. It would make me look extremely dumb if that turkey isn't there. The turkey that I was 100% sure you had. In the worlds eye it makes me look like a fanatical lunatic... much like we as a nation look today in the worlds eye... (Illegal turkey? What was I thinking... anyhow, the point still remains the same. No matter how bad the example.)

Giving the WMD's to Syria was just as damaging to the USA, as using them on us. We have damaged relationships with allie countries, and in some cases even killed our relationships with allie countries (France? Perhaps Germany?) all because these WMD's weren't there. Quite effective indeed.


2.Why would Syria accept them? Free WMD's to use. Why WOULDN'T Syria accept them. Syria also has accepted other unknown items, and Iraqi politicians in the past. His sons fled to Syria, and I think at one point (i'm not sure) Saddam has fled to syria in the past too.

3.Actually, If you read all the info posted by Agent47, and seekerof, in that ATS thread I listed, you will find out that some Iraqi officials (they keep on using the term "Iraqi officials" never revealing who, or what the person is.), as well as Syrian defecters have confirmed reports of WMD convoys moving "the goods" into some valley complex(I forget the name of that valley.)

[edit on 17-9-2004 by oui]

Counterpoints....
1. Remember that Saddam was a dictator, and that his interests were focused on one thing... staying in power. What good would embarressing the US do, if in doing so, it meant that he would loose his power and likely end up dead?
2. Allowing politicians and individuals into your country is one thing, accepting stockpiles of WMDs is something else entirely. Allowing a few people into your country probably wont get you invaded by the most powerful country on earth. Possessing WMDs will. With the world so closely watching Iraq, do you really think Syria would take that chance? The idea that they did is illogical, and has no evidence to support it.
3. Its convienient that this information cant be substantiated by physical evidence. If you ask a few thousand people if they know where WMDs are, the odds are that a few will say "yes" if they think they can use it for leverage. Unfortunately, there isnt any evidence to believe these stories are true. If I was being interrogated, I'd tell you I saw Bigfoot if I thought that was what might get me free.

Counter-counter points:

1: Saddam was a dictator, but whose to say what his interests were? His intent above all was most likely was staying alive. We found him in a hole in the ground did we not? What good would it do embarrasing the US? Just look what it has done allready... The worlds opinion about us has gone down the drain (more so than it was allready), we've damaged relations with most of our allie countries, as well as killed them with france, and most likely germany. We've awakened so many more enemies in the middle east under the idea that we're "crusading" there. Hell, even our own country is mad at itself. Look how many americans are saying the whole WMD case is a crock of lies. I'm sure Saddam wasn't planning on all of that to happen, but I'm sure he isn't sad it did.

To top that all off... NO WMD's found will just help him when he has to go for trial. I'm sure saddam didn't think we'd just find him, and execute him... we're a nation of laws, we don't do that... the nazi's went to trial, just as saddam will... and in this case we have no hard evidence of WMD's. Saddam moving those WMD's worked out excellent for him. The smoking gun has been tossed into the river. Now we gotta go find it.

2:Why would Syria take the chance in accepting WMD's? Catherder offered quite a good explanation. Also to the idea is not illogical at all... its totally plausible... and to say there is NO EVIDENCE at all is simply ignoring what I've posted earlier. Seekerof, and Agent47, have a WHOLE thread full of evidence supporting the claims that Iraq moved its WMD's to Syria.

3:Syrian defectors have confirmed it as well. It's not like they were captured, and interrogated. They CAME TO US, and told us.

Much of the evidence for the reasons to invade Iraq came from Iraqi defectors which the CIA did not put much stock into and actually were proven quite false as we painfully found out later. Should Syrian defectors be believed any more than Iraqi ones?

[edit on 17-9-2004 by heelstone]

Iraqi Officials say that the WMDs were moved there.
Syrian defectors say that the WMDs were moved there.
Third party intelligence agencies say the WMDs were moved there.
We have Satellite images of convoys, and syrian troop movements, which support the idea the WMDs, or "something big" was moved there.

We have to go with what we have. Alot of fingers are pointing at Syria for the Iraqi WMDs wouldn't you say? We are looking for a smoking gun, and it appears this smoking gun was thrown into a river. We think Syria is that river.

To top that off... all those iraqi defectors were either 1: loyal to the cause, 2: were told wrong info themselves, 3: or disinformation agents. I'm placing my money on 2, or 3.

Besides that; the US did not just base this war on what we heard from unloyal Iraqis. We had much supporting intel about Iraqs WMDs from allie countries. Many of them even believed (AS WE DID) that Iraq qas seekling "significant quantities" of Uranium from africa.

[edit on 17-9-2004 by oui]

Actually, I believe that yes, Saddam's primary motivation was holding on to power. At some point, though (perhaps when 400k troops were being deployed along the border) he finally realized the jig was up and so he moved to defeat the US the only way left to him: on the public relations stage. Nicely done too. Would you not do more damage to a man by turning his friends against him than by simply defeating him in combat? Isolate and alienate, not defeat with arms was Saddam's final goal.

Of course, I believe he had WMD's deployed, and even had given orders to use them, but the orders were not obeyed (still trying to find that darn book I found)

For some reason, I can't understand what you mean.

Saddam knew the jig was up... I get that part... but scince he knew it was up he hid the WMDs so he could fight us the only way he possibly could; by fighting us on the public relations front; thus damaging our relationship with our allies?

Is that what you mean?

[edit on 17-9-2004 by oui]

Wouldn't you think that ONE of the people questioned would know the location of the buried WMD?

US agents were sent into Iraq in the months before the war with millions of dollars in cash, they offered the money and asylum in the US (if required) to government and millitary officals in exchange for information regarding weapons systems and programs...i dont think they achieved much.

Well I don't know about you, but if I was Saddam trying to hide some WMDs, only 3 people would know where the location was.

Me, Myself, and I.

Not even the people that moved the WMDs would know that they moved it. I'd get a huge amount of trucks, and fill the majority of the trucks with sealed crates of Soviet tank parts, and the small minority of the trucks would be filled with sealed crates of the WMDs, mixed with tank/engine parts. Once the transfer is made into syria its out of sight, out of mind.

Anyone has a question about what the shipment is? All they gotta know is that they're sending a shipment of tank parts that the Syrians have agreed to buy from us.

This brings to mind a good story

I worked at a warehouse for 2 years in the Shipping/Recieving department. You'ld be shocked as to what can dissapear when you don't sign a transfer paper here, or a paper there. We once had an entire truck of Copper sulfate pentahydrate, (or hydride I can't remember) dissapear all because the truck was not signed out from the sending warehouse.

THATS 12,800 pounds of chemicals gone, all because the outgoing shipping clerk didn't fill out his transfer papers right. Months later we eventually figured out that the shipment was sent to another warehouse; the wrong warehouse 2 states over... when their stock manager magically had 12800 pounds of overstocked chemicals.

Imagine if the warehouse 2 states over was Syria instead; and the stock manager knew to account for the overstock??? No one would have known a thing about the missing chemicals. By the way this is a true story... and no I will not name the company I worked for either. I'll just mention that we worked in producing, storing, and shipping industrial pool chemicals across the east coast.

[edit on 18-9-2004 by oui]

Originally posted by heelstone
The United States has had control over Iraq for well over a year now and captured and interrogated most of the former Iraqi government associated with the military and its supplies. Wouldn't you think that ONE of the people questioned would know the location of the buried WMD?

Excellent point. You'd also think that some of teh resistance fighters, and some of them at least originally were military commanders, would've used them by now too.

Originally posted by apw100
Ok, three points...
1. Why would Iraq give Syria its WMDs?

To aide a freindly baathist regime, one that might be able to do something as a security council member to shorten the war and restore him to power afterwards?

If Saddam did have WMDs, wouldnt he have used them if he thought it was he last option?

I'd've thought so. Perhaps, if they were transfered, this was done after the Gulf War tho, or at some other time.

I mean, whats the point of having them if you arent going to use them. Even if it ensured his death, using WMDs against American forces would have made him a hero and a martyr throughout the Middle East.
Methinks Hussein cares less about being a hero and more about being in power. Its possible that he considered a chemical attack on american troops would mean nuclear retaliation, in which case he might die, and certainly in which case there wouldn't be anymore international pressure against the US durign the course of the war (and he had to think that the war could be dragged out for a long time, maybe he was hoping the US would get fed up and leave?). Or its possible that he thought if he did use them this time then the US would execute him if they found him or that he would certainly be executed after the war.

Think about it, what could his strategy have been? He doesn't appear to be completely insane, at least he was able to stay in power all this time, so what was he thinking? So he had to know that the Iraqi army didn't stand too much of a chance. I can only imagine that he had hoped to go into hiding, maybe release a video or two ala bin laden, and make peope think he was behind and American setbacks, or hope to be free if a general uprising took place and then sweep into power if the american left. Its doubtful, and certainly not a particularly good plan, but still...

2. Why would Syria accept them?

To use them perhaps?

Wouldnt that just give the Bush administration an excuse to attack them? The

only reason that Syria would need WMDs is if they were invaded,

Or if they wanted to sell them to hamas, hezbollah, al-qaida, iran, libya, etc etc, or just dump them on israel or save them in case a general 'clash of civilizations' broke out. Chemical weapons aren't strictly defensive weapons.

If you were going to hide vast stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, it would be a major operation. Thousands of people would know about it.

Not if you bury the buriers along with the weapons....

The report also criticized the move by officials of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi administration to ship thousand of tons of scrap metal out of the country. The scrap included 43 engines taken from prohibited missiles, as well as equipment that could have been used in making weapons of mass destruction.
Voice of America

I thought all of the WMD's were turned into scap by Saddaml?

Throw in a bunch of old soviet tank parts, throw in a few mig engines, add a few scuds in here, or there, and then add 43 illegal rocket engines, along with a dash of WMD making stuff, and you have a nice scrap pile of WMDs your getting rid of.

It's like me telling you that you have to dismantle, and destroy every shoe in your house, despite the fact I don't know exactly how many you own. Lets say you own 15 pairs of shoes (for arguments sake) you take 6, 7, maybe 8 pairs of them, rip em up, destroy them, take the shoe laces throw em in the box too, and ask me for permission to throw out the destroyed shoes. You then take the remaining pairs of shoes, and bury them in your backyard, or give em to a neighbor to hold.

See where this is leading too.

Originally posted by oui
See where this is leading too.

- Yeah of course. Imagination is, usually, a great thing.

Despite the absolute lack of any tangible evidence, despite years of UN inspections.....including Bish's hand-picked team.....all saying there are no WMDs to be found, the utter collapse of the previous regime, the (illegal) interrogation (torture) of Iraqis on a huge scale, the satellite surveilance for 10yrs, the no-fly zones for 10yrs etc etc you still can't believe the US got it so wrong.

So what is the next excuse/allegation?

They moved them.....surprise surprise, to the next bad guy on the list. How convenient.

Maybe they can have one of those really really convincing lecture like Powell did before the last war to 'prove' it?

How about this as an idea.

Saddam deliberately gave every impression of having and making WMD's because he thought (with the 'credibility of having done this in the past) it would deter a US attack. Even, reportedly, going as far as building 'dummy' installations.

(BTW before you get too far into the 'everyone's intel was saying so'; routine; in the UK we had a House of Commons report published complaining about the UK's dependance on US sourced intel. Even what we thought wasn't sourced from US assets turned out in many cases to be US sourced.

'We' (and Blair) were led by the nose.....and we know it. It'll not happen again no matter how many opponents of the current Syrian regime pop up to claim all sorts nor whatever impressive looking satellite pics your gov puts on show.

Fool us once.......)