Ralph Day

There was good evidence that WMD's were moved from Iraq to Syria. Bush never defended his administration on this issue. Now Syria is using them on its people. Why did Bush stay silent?

Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE

You think national politics are complex?

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

One country can not just go into another for a check. Iraq had better than 1500 sanuctions before something was done, Syria has few if any because Russia and/on China blocks them.

rickdri

Exactly bmca32! Thanks for another good post!

user1092

This is a good example of a low information unintelligent v**er who's been brainwashed into this whole "evil arabs/muslims" thing without having any idea of what goes on over there in the region. They are not a homogeneous group.

Iraq and Syria h**ed each other more than they h**ed the US (or the West in general). As a matter of fact, they only direct their actions against the West when the West supports the "other" Muslim group. In all other times, they are busy fighting each other.

Sunnis h**e the West when the West supports Shiites against Sunnis.
Shiites h**e the West when the West supports Sunnis against Shiites.

But in all other times, they just h**e each other, a lot more than they h**e Christians, Jews, or any other infidels. (With very few exceptions.)

It's an oversimplification, but that's basically how it is.

Now, why in the world would Sunni's Iraqi government t***sfer WMD to Alawis' (Shiite) Syrian government?

Iraq used WMD against Iran. Syria is Iran's closest ally. If Iraq t***sferred WMDs to Syria, then Syria would immediately t***sfer it to Iran, and Iran would use Iraq's own WMDs against Iraq without any delay. And Iran would have perfect deniability; the world would think Saddam gassed his own people with his own WMDs. Any possible UN inspection afterwards would come to a conclusion that those WMDs are of Iraqi origin. Such a "gift basket" would be just too good to be true for Iran.

So this little theory simply makes no sense.

But who cares about logic, right?

After all, if it helps you justify Bush's mistakes with this "Aha!" attitude, then it's all good. Screw the integrity, as long it sounds good on the surface and supports your position. Amirite?

There is partisan politics, and then there is stupidity. This is the latter.

P.S. This isn't meant just for you personally. It's for all the people who all of the sudden started talking about Iraq to Syria WMD t***sfer with this "Aha!" attitude. As if somehow this nonsense theory actually explains something.

Everyone makes mistakes. So when your "side" makes a mistake, just own up to it. Spreading nonsense just because it supports your worldview shows lack on integrity.

And isn't integrity what the conservatives all are about?

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

WOW, I don't know where to start. When did Iraq and Syria h**e each other? CNN and Atlantic wire say with satellite images heavy traffic from Iraq to Syria. Moving bread? Military style trucks?

Clinton, Albright, Berger, Levin, Daschel, Pelosi, Gore, Kennedy,Byrd, Kerry, Rocherfeller, Waxman plus at a dozen other democrats said there were WMDso Congress lied. Nope they thought they missed this one but what they missed and some news picked up.

Sounds like 'democratic talking point'.

user1092

Pretty much since the time Syria joined the anti-Iraqi coalition during the Gulf War. Hussein didn't like that very much.

You really didn't know that, did you? :) LOL.

As said, low information v**ers... they exist on both sides, sadly.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Pakistan did also along with 42 other nations but I still see much cooperation between fighters in Pakistan and Iraq and now those same fighters are in Syria. Saddan didn't like what anyone and never went to war with Syria.

user1092

Yes, there are plenty of people who basically go wherever the war is. Some are mercenaries, and some are religious nuts. The same people who fought in Chechnya also fought in Iraq, and Egypt, and Libya, and Syria. And they'll go to any place where there is a war because k*****g is all they know how to do. Foreign fighters were involved in all Muslim-related conflicts over the past 30 years. They are all from different countries. Mostly from countries in the Middle East and Africa. They are a lot more ruthless than the locals, in any given war, and they never want the war to end. And if the war ends despite their efforts to continue destabilizing the situation, they move someplace else.

But what's that got to do with the fact that Iraq->Syria WMD t***sfer is a ridiculous theory?

Read up on Sunni vs Shia relationships and you'll see why even considering such possibility is silly.

It would be similar to saying that during the Cold War, the USSR hid some of its nuclear stash in the USA.

Not to mention the fact that it would have been ridiculously stupid of Hussein to send away WMDs and lose the only fighting chance against the US invasion. Do you think he chose to hide the stash and die just to make Bush look bad?

Ralph Day

So, is this what this site is all about: calling someone "low information, unintelligent" because a question doesn't agree with your views? My wife's cousin is an attorney and was in Afghanistan watching satellite photos of the convoys leaving Iraq for Syria just before the Iraq war. Other intelligence sources have admitted that WMD's were moved from Iraq. Will we ever know the t***h?

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Not silly at all when you see a line of military style trucks going from the outskirts of Baghdad nearing the Syria border. Nope couldn't see in those trucks but I'm not really believing is was Goodwill.

user1092

Well, it depends on the matter at hand. When the "views" are stupid, there is no point in not calling it for what it is.

Example.

One in five Americans believes that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Should we call those people uninformed and stupid? (preferably to their faces)

Or should we respect their "opinion?" And respect the fact that we disagree?

Let's play this out, hypothetically.

Person A: The Sun revolves around Earth.
Person B: You are an i***t.
Person A: But XYZ says so, and UVW published it, and...
Person B: You are still an i***t.
Person A: Do you call anyone who doesn't agree with you an i***t?
Person B: No, only the i***ts.

Hopefully, this explains my position on "unintelligent" and "disagreements."

user1092

Can you explain the logic behind the alleged WMD move given what I posted above and all the other information that was discussed over the past decade?

Can you explain the motive and the reasoning behind it?

No? Why not?

And if not, shouldn't you try to figure it out, at least for yourself, instead of clinging to an opinion simply because it helps you maintain your current worldview?

And if you can't piece the logic together, doesn't it mean you should re-evaluate your views rather than stubbornly defend them?

The pictures, the satellites, the trucks... combine that with a logical explanation of "why" for all parties involved, and only then you are good to go. But without it, it's a weak position.