Posted on 01/26/2006 12:55:39 AM PST by mal
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
Google Halabja.
" I'd also point out that this war was a dismal failure on the part of the U.S. .."
HOGWASH, It has been a spectacular success! WE rolled the Iraqi army in record time with minimal casualties. We have enabled the creation of a Democratic gov't in Iraq for the first time EVER. The puzzle peices in the middle east will continue to fall into line.... and one day you will finaly go AHAH!............... Success unless your a Marxist or Communist......LOL
Robert Heinlein said it best: When the time comes - and it will - you will have to be able to shoot your own dog.
Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people in May, 1988.
I feel very differently. A major thwarted al Qaeda attack fell completely off the radar. Why?
But, that is precisely what Saddam did in the Kuwaiti war with his entire modern air force. Moved it into Iran (a former enemy state), or buried them in the sand.
He knew he didn't have enough for a stand up fight for air supremacy, so he gambled on preserving his assets for a later time.
I never thought I'd see the day when so-called "conservatives" in this country would believe that violations of U.N. resolutions and enforcement of another country's "international obligations" would constitute a legitimate rationale for putting even a single U.S. life in harm's way halfway around the world.
What is the political/philosophical principle under which a conservative American considers the use of "international law" to be an act of treason when suggested by a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court but a legitimate power of the U.S. government when authorized in an act of Congress?
Fine. Then airlift a couple of hundred thousand automatic weapons and a couple of million rounds of ammunition into Kurdistan, and let them deal with their problem themselves.
No it was only one of, on a long list or reasons to go to war, only the liberal media keeps hounding the Demo talking point using that as the ONLY reason. It's BS and you should know that.
Fair enough. If this constituted a legitimate reason for the U.S. to wage war against Iraq, then why didn't the U.S. topple the Hussein government in June of 1988?
Lastly, your response that "In fact, suggesting that the war is a success or a failure is a futile endeavor": It was, in fact you who suggested the war was a dismal failure; your original post read "I'd also point out that this war was a dismal failure on the part of the U.S. Those are your words. So, apparently you admit to being engaged in a futile endeavor.
'Nuff said!
Tell him thanks but I an not going to make him rich by buying his book.
Where the heck has he been for the last year as our President was taking a beating from the dem's and world.
&*^% him.
You're right about that, but it's worth noting that many of those "other" reasons on that long list are even worse than that one.
And Jay Rockefeller said, "Mission Accomplished!!".
Good people died in 1991 sir. Entirely due to the actions of Saddam Hussein. Saddam was doled out a punishment by the world body.....not just the USA or the coalition that ousted him from Kuwait. He had WMD at that time and didn't use them then either.
I wish to conserve that which those folks fought and died for in 1991. That is to say, Saddam had to take the punishment he was dealt as a result of his own actions. He had a choice to do that willingly or be removed from power. Clinton knew this and that is why he backed the regime change Idea to begin with, as he knew full well that Saddam never had any intention of complying with the agreement he accepted....the agreement known as 687.
Over a decade was spent trying every option short of invasion to remove him power. All those options failed. Oil For Food is a blazing example of failure. You like to speak of failure.....funny how that isn't part of your posts.
687 was not and is not international law, it is an agreement made that was not held and there were consequences for that. That my friend is a conservatives viewpoint of right and proper. That is to say, held to account for choices made.
Is terrorism mentioned at all in anything that has to do with that use of force document or anything it points to?
How about Hostage taking?
Saddam had to go.....and he did. The world is moving forward where before it was stagnant. That sir, is a good thing.
People like you slammed Reagan everyday for his actions just like you do Bush today. Take notice how things have turned out since then and think long and hard about where the world will be in a couple decades. Folks were Wrong to oppose Reagan then and they are wrong to do that to Bush today.....simply because both of those LEADERS were doing the right thing at the time.....regardless of how painful those actions were or what the costs of those actions were.
Wrong question to ask -- since you're suggesting that I must prove that something doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on those who insist that it DOES exist. We can go back over some typical threads here in late 2002 and early 2003 to make my point . . .
Alberta's Child: I'm telling you right now that these so-called WMDs will never be found.
Other Freeper: What are you, a DUmmie? Of course they will. Everybody knows they will . . . it's beyond any doubt.
Alberta's Child: All right -- let's have a bet on it.
******
Now let's fast-forward to 2006 . . .
Alberta's Child: Where are those WMDs? It's been more than three years now.
Other Freeper: What are you, a DUmmie? They've been moved to Syria. Everybody knows that's exactly what happened to them . . . it's beyond any doubt.
Alberta's Child: They aren't going to be found in Syria. Let's have a bet on it.
As you can see, this kind of discussion ends up being a futile waste of time -- because at every turn of the road there will always be people who "insist" that they know exactly what happened to these WMDs -- "beyong any doubt." If I had 100 years to spend on this process, I'd end up in a bizarre discussion with someone right here on FreeRepublic with someone who insists that these WMDs were either take to the International Space Station on a Russian re-supply mission, or hidden in John Kerry's basement by George Soros.
It was, in fact you who suggested the war was a dismal failure; your original post read "I'd also point out that this war was a dismal failure on the part of the U.S."
Let's go back and look at my original post here . . . "I'd also point out that this war was a dismal failure on the part of the U.S. if we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of U.S. lives over these WMDs only to have them spirited out of the country without our knowledge."
I don't "converse" with you on a regular basis here, so I'll be a little lenient. But the next time you quote me out of context in a deliberate attempt to deceive other people on this site will be the last time I post a response to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.