Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says

Gabriel_Etranil · Jan 26, 2006, 11:37 PM

Quote:

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration's decision to go to war in 2003. And President Bush himself has conceded much of the point; in a televised prime-time address to Americans last month, he said, "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."

[color=black]http://www.nysun.com/article/26514[/color]

Falstaff · Jan 27, 2006, 12:33 AM

I can confirm that as the absolute truth.....

SFOSOK · Jan 27, 2006, 12:47 AM

Well way back when I knew we weren't goin to find anything if Sadam was smart. Because Sadam realized he could tear apart and divide our country by moving his WMD's. We knew always knew he had them, he tested them on the kurds. I think if we find the weapons in Syria that the nation should stop bickering and unite to end this problem once. Won't happen because certain people can't be wrong.

Sandok · Jan 27, 2006, 12:56 AM

Well till you guys find ANYTHING, I'm skeptical.

SFOSOK · Jan 27, 2006, 01:04 AM

Right unless proven wrong right?

But you have to admit that with the genocide of the kurds and all the intelligence that we had on it there should have been something, even if its not considered WMD's. The fact that it was all missing and we found almost absolutely nothing is a bit disturbing.

Falstaff · Jan 27, 2006, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

Well till you guys find ANYTHING, I'm skeptical.

they have found and have know about WMD during the first gulf war and during the exodus to Syria, Shamud missles, gas projectiles, bomb making materials, it made across the border long before we went looking for Saddam.

Razgriz · Jan 27, 2006, 01:17 AM

you try finding wmd's and such materials in a place filled with f'ing sand.

Yea, its like finding a needle in a pool of molten lava

The_Neon_Cowboy · Jan 27, 2006, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razgriz

you try finding wmd's and such materials in a place filled with f'ing sand.

Yea, its like finding a needle in a pool of molten lava

Point being Iraq is a sandbox the size of california , you could probubly hide
the equilvalent of a small country in there with out dectection

Sandok · Jan 27, 2006, 03:02 PM

I totally agree with you guys but the first gulf war had more "reasons" to go to war for than the second one imho

calidan · Jan 27, 2006, 05:13 PM

And liberating the Iraqi people isn't a good reason?

Falstaff · Jan 27, 2006, 08:27 PM

I can tell you guys that Saddam would still be in power if he hadnt been involved in an arms race, invading nieghbors, a volitale politically figure and threatening Israel. We were intimately familiar with his background and knew eventually he would become a liability both politically and financially as he had borrowed money from several countries with no intention of paying it back. Toppling Saddam was a goal long before both wars.
Saddam becaame bedfellows wiwth many organizations worldwide that specialized in terrorist activity and many "legitimate" powers as well. I ask you all to look at the career of Teddy Roosevelt and our imperialistic ambitions as well, we invaded several countries and toppled many governments on the premise of controlling the waters and land surrounding us, and of course to save our international faces and butts.
You will find that when people say that we invade and conquer for financial gain or presitige that there is a kernal or truth to that whether you dismiss that idea or not.
In terms of lethality we are number one in the world, and that buys us lots of political clout the world over, that is the greatest reason for projecting power, and Iraq was another oppurtunity to put to right, many of the political mistakes we made,albiet in another country.
Our men and women did not die in vane, no rather they joined the honored dead among those that came before, serving their country with the highest degree of sacrifice, and changing the world forever.
How many among you have ever considered serving your country, its a hell of a thing, but fewer still sit in their foxholes, and ponder the reason why they were there.
Like the mighty legions of Rome, our strength is drawn from a common desire and a common goal, the glory of Rome and the Pax Romana...
I too believe that our elected leaders want the PAX AMERICANA...

Calinerti · Jan 27, 2006, 09:08 PM

Its awesome to see that Georges Sada is embracing capitalism. WTG Mr. Sada. Your financial future is secured.

SFOSOK · Jan 27, 2006, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

I totally agree with you guys but the first gulf war had more "reasons" to go to war for than the second one imho

More civilians would die in a week when he would be in power than they did because of the war.

Nacht · Jan 27, 2006, 10:09 PM

I dont think we need to find the actual Chemical and Biological agents.

we KNOW he was trying to attain devices and enriched uranium for a Nuke,

and we've found scud missles modified for chemical/biological weapon delivery. Tell me, why would they have a delivery system for something "they never had"? Completely Illogical.

Sandok · Jan 28, 2006, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calidan

And liberating the Iraqi people isn't a good reason?

Well not all of em seem to love you for it and while ur at it, why not liberate Cuba, North Korea, etc?

SFOSOK · Jan 28, 2006, 02:39 AM

Because no one will let us Liberate Cuba and trying to Liberate NK right now is like saying you about ready for that WW3 yet? I think we need to build up to NK. I think its on the right path though it looks like a crusade.

Sandok · Jan 28, 2006, 02:53 AM

I think attacking Iraq is already almost WW3... The amount of hate u've made for urselfs is unbelievable but don't take my word for it

Razgriz · Jan 28, 2006, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

I think attacking Iraq is already almost WW3... The amount of hate u've made for urselfs is unbelievable but don't take my word for it

Uhhh no. Iraq almost wwIII, you kidding me? Its a guerilla warfare fought by essentially untrained young kids and older men fighting with limited to no training whatsoever, fighitng so they can glorify their family name by killing an American. Through my experiences, they are dumber than dirt. They'll run down the street firing their ak wildly from the hip, basically pouring hot lead down the road in hopes of hitting someone. Thats when we fire into their chest and heads, and laugh at their stupidity. wwIII, please, this is like playing army in your backyard vs the slow kid on the street.

As for the hate built up......hmmm, hop in the bandwagon of anti-americanism. Most people just recite someone elses opinion *cough* trodas *cough*. Amazing.....

Sandok · Jan 28, 2006, 03:49 AM

It's sparking racial and religious hatred against you. That's why it's ALMOST WW3. It's the beginning... If you keep this up you WILL have a WW3 on ur hands.

And I lived in the US and I like the country. But talk to the people OUT of texas and the US and you'll see many more people (not all like trodas thank god)

OldBuzzard · Jan 28, 2006, 04:33 AM

So, invading Iraq and deposing SH made them hate us? What were the events of 9/11 then? An act of love?????

Quite franky I'm of the opinion that we are IN WWIII now, and Afganastan and Iraq are just battles in that war.

Sandok · Jan 28, 2006, 04:39 AM

The thing is most of the people didn't see why you needed to attack him... They see many dangerous dictators everywhere but the fact that SH also had oil gives a bad name to ur war...

I'm not gonna say it's right or wrong or give MY point of view but that's how people in my tiny little neutral country feel

Nacht · Jan 28, 2006, 02:17 PM

The Iraq war was not for Oil. Don't ever be foolish enough to believe that.

Sandok · Jan 28, 2006, 04:08 PM

I am not but try proving that to the people who don't really love the US...

SFOSOK · Jan 28, 2006, 10:17 PM

Yeah, my bro was in Bagdad and he said even Sadams elite guards were morons...

Don't believe everything you hear in the news, fighting a losing battle hahahhahaahaa. Comparing it to Vietnam HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!

Sandok · Jan 29, 2006, 12:21 PM

It's not a win either... You ARE loosing troops which shouldn't be the case if the war was truely over

Anyways, enough I know you guys love ur country