PDA

View Full Version : Question on Chemical Weapons


classhandicapper
09-05-2013, 11:01 AM
If chemical weapons were used in Syria, where did they come from?

I recall one of the theories put forward back then for why we never found them in Iraq after we invaded was that they were shipped to Syria.

Now Syria is supposedly using chemical weapons.

Could that be Sadam's stash?

RaceBookJoe
09-05-2013, 11:47 AM
If chemical weapons were used in Syria, where did they come from?

I recall one of the theories put forward back then for why we never found them in Iraq after we invaded was that they were shipped to Syria.

Now Syria is supposedly using chemical weapons.

Could that be Sadam's stash?

The rumor was that Sadam had them transported to Syria...maybe just a coincidence, not sure.

Overlay
09-05-2013, 11:55 AM
Here's an article on the subject from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

BlueShoe
09-05-2013, 12:22 PM
I recall one of the theories put forward back then for why we never found them in Iraq after we invaded was that they were shipped to Syria.
We've found them. General Sada was right all along.

Clocker
09-05-2013, 03:21 PM
If chemical weapons were used in Syria, where did they come from?


It depends on who you ask, and when you ask them. The facts are fluid under this administration.

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel perked up some ears at today’s House Foreign Affairs hearing on Syria with a brief exchange in which he said Russia had supplied chemical weapons to Syria.

It all happened in an exchange with Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., during which Hagel said it’s no secret that the Assad regime has significant stockpiles of chemical weapons.

When Wilson asked where they’d come from, Hagel said, “Well, the Russians supply them. Others are supplying them with those chemical weapons. They make some themselves.”

After the hearing had concluded, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little issued a clarification, explaining that Hagel was referring to the “well-known conventional arms relationship between Syria and Russia.”

ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/pentagon-clarifies-hagels-comments-that-russia-sent-chemical-weapons-to-syria/)

FantasticDan
09-05-2013, 04:05 PM
It depends on who you ask, and when you ask them. The facts are fluid under this administration.Unlike the previous, right? :lol:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

PaceAdvantage
09-05-2013, 04:12 PM
Unlike the previous, right? :lol:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/When can we expect CNN to run a comparison count?

Or will they refuse to even acknowledge one false statement so as not to tarnish the chosen one? :lol:

Clocker
09-05-2013, 04:30 PM
Unlike the previous, right? :lol:


From the linked source:

The study says Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda.

Bush has consistently asserted that at the time he and other officials made the statements, the intelligence community of the U.S. and several other nations, including Britain, believed Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.



Bush made some major screw-ups, and invading Iraq was his biggest. But there is still no evidence that he ever knowingly lied. He is accountable for bad decisions about Iraq, and his administration is accountable for incompetence in providing bad intelligence. But he was consistent and acted in good faith according to what he knew, or what he thought he knew.

None of which has any bearing whatsoever on the total lack of leadership of the current president and the bumbling incompetence of his administration. I think that history will judge George W. Bush to be a mediocre president. But he is still head and shoulders in leadership and integrity above Obama. Which is a really depressing commentary on the state of the union.

Segwin
09-05-2013, 08:09 PM
When we went into Iraq it was based on him having wmd. The case was made before the public, played out on tv, with spy satellite video.

To put this into football terms: It's the superbowl. The opposing team is entering your soil. It's the 4th and you're losing big time. But you have a special quarter back that you have been saving for just such an occasion. You bring him out to change the game. More to real life: your country is being invaded and you know that it is a fight to the death. They mean to topple your regimen and to either kill you or capture you. So with nothing left to lose you ship your wmd to Syria and proceed to hide in the ground? Really?

I didn't buy into it the first time and ain't buying into it this time. Fix America first.

Tom
09-05-2013, 09:43 PM
What other WMD might have been moved to Syria?

HUSKER55
09-05-2013, 10:38 PM
SOCIALISM:confused: :D

JustRalph
09-05-2013, 11:03 PM
What other WMD might have been moved to Syria?

Who knows? The guy was willing to do this

http://xpda.com/junkmail/junk155/030706-F-0000C-906.jpg

dartman51
09-06-2013, 12:03 AM
Wiki Leaks released documents proving there were WMD's there. Our soldiers found evidence of them. Just because the LSM, didn't report it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. My son in law was with a group that found evidence that they had been there. A former co worker of mine, also was there, and with a squad that it was their job to locate WMD's. Over a 7 month period, they found 4 areas where they had been, along with documentation. I prefer to believe someone that was there, as opposed to the idiots that run around calling Bush a liar, that they NEVER existed. :ThmbUp: