TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- "Syria has Chemical Weapons"

"Syria has Chemical Weapons"

This morning Bush said to the world, "Syria has chemical weapons". UK Foreign Minister Jack Straw says, "We are not sure if Syria has chemical weapons."

So the basic story is prepare yourselves for a US invasion of Syria which may or may not be backed by the UK. This just goes to show that the administrations foreign policy. I find this especially worrying as my older brother heads to marine bootcamp on the 23rd of april i thought he had missed all the fighting

Any sources?

Syria HAS chimical and biological weapons this is no news!!!!

When your neighbour has the same plus nuclear, you try to balance the odds with the means you have at your disposal.

Got a point there Malek. I personally don't support agfression against Syria unless there is firm evidence of their government guilty of what the US really accuse them for, that being the aiding the Iraqui regime by supplying them with equipment in the war against the US (The US government accused the Syrians of delivering night-vision gogles through the Syrian-Iraqui border during the war) and hiding Iraqui refugees within it's confines... I personally think that for the moment the US should not attack because:
A. Iraqui refugees SHOULD be hosted in Syria if they do not want to return to Iraq, as long as they aren't ex-soldiers of the regime;
B. The suppliment of war tools to Iraq might very well have come from Syria, but was not supported by their government unless solid eevidence will suggest otherwise.

those equipments were russian made and were smuggled (like so many things) thru Syria, maybe from Turkey or Lebanon (I am making an hypothesis here). the US were holding the iraqi-syrian border and are also risponsible at what gets in and out of Iraq.

Also just before the war, the Bush administration clearly stated that they don't really care if Saddam leaves Iraq for somewhere else, as long as he leaves Iraq and let the country be free.

Now that the war is over, and MAYBE Saddam (if not dead) is in Syria, why does the Bush administration changes its mind about letting Saddam go to exile?

and about the Syrian mercenaries... this IS utter bullshit. There was people wanting to fight americans from almost every arabic country. Those aren't merceneries by definition but normal people who decided to help Iraqis in their resistence.


all in all, the US administration are trying to pull the same stunt against Syria but now their evidences is really really weak even the British don't want to attack Syria.

Re: If you believe Baathists escaping unnoticed to Syria, you'll believe anything

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa If the American border patrols were that ineffective, then it would be a piece of cake to infiltrate the US from Mexico or Canada.

It is.

- You know what, on Setpember, 2 of my best friends will be going to the Marines...

vesa has a good point, but i dont think they even had to let them all escape to syria...its entirely possible that they're making it all up (the allegations that they're harboring ex-baathists)...i mean they made up the allegations of WMDs in iraq and went to war, and they still havent found any WMDs there, so they could be doing the same for syria, except instead of WMDs they're accusing them of helping ex-baathists...because it sounds like a reasonable allegation lol

anyway, i've been reading on a site or two that the top echelon of the republican guard was completely bought out (ie, bribed) by the US, hence the almost complete lack of significant resistance by the RG as they approached baghdad...the capture of saddam international airport mite've been important so they could all be flown out...of course we'll never know the whole story, i dont think there's a way to really verify it's authenticity....

The US doesn't have border patrols in Iraq at least not during the war. And in any event, how could the US have mobilized a border patrol to man a border that's the entire lenght of western Iraq in a few days. If you look at the troop positions the US only had troops in the North and the South of Iraq. The troops had bigger and better things to worry about such as FIGHTING A WAR. Truth be told we don't have any idea of what kind of exodus this was like ... I doubt it was one happy picnic convoy of all the Baathists travelling to syria at the same time. We're talking about 55 men in a hostile country where its difficult telling oridinary citizens from high level officials. I'm sure the CIA and intelligences services would be flattered that you think that the US has satellites fixed at geosynchronous orbits over Iraq and that we have spy planes flying 24/7 with the capability to distinguish who's who at a moments notice.

Additionally take into account it takes only several hours to drive into Syria as opposed to the amount of time it takes to gather this intelligence, make conclusions as a result of this intelligence, and then actually act on that intelligence. We didn't know they would flee as quickly as they did ... we were all waiting for a prolonged "siege" of Baghdad. Everbody, even the Americans were surprised at how little resistance was put up and how quickly the regime crumbled.

Once again it's easy to secondguess, critisize, and place suspicion on events AFTER they transpire. Remember all the 9/11 details that the US and the CIA SHOULD have picked up on? It was SO obvious in RETROSPECT that it must have been an intelligence operation by the CIA .

Great new avatar, occrider

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Great new avatar, occrider

Thanks. Following in Dave Saenz's footsteps and posting my heros in my avatar ... I think I'm gonna start photoshopping other pics and use a different pic of sahaf every month

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Thanks. Following in Dave Saenz's footsteps and posting my heros in my avatar ... I think I'm gonna start photoshopping other pics and use a different pic of sahaf every month

LoL that's great. Gotta conmemorate!! sad sad day.

good points!

on a more recent note, Powell will be traveling to Syria to meet with the president.... addressing these points:

- chemical weapns
- 'illegal' import of iraqi oil
- harboring of terrorists
- harboring iraqi exiles

the 'illegal' import of iraqi oil point is just rediculous! I mean, why should the US be soo concerned what iraq does with it's oil! lol...
Iraq basically sells Syria and Jordan it's Oil for cheap prices, kinda like a black market price.... and the US is upset about that for some reason?????

anyway, we'll just have to wait and see the outcome of these talks....

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Why? At least I would have considered it as a feasible, even easy operation to airlift American border patrols to the Iraqi-Syrian border during the first night, wipe out the ineffective Iraqi troops defending it, and start monitoring the main roads and smuggling routes carefully documented by SEALS and SAS for a decade.

Easy to secure a border HUNDREDS of miles long, without any divisional unit cohesion, behind enemy lines, and without any tank or artillery support????? That goes against ANY military doctrine that I know of. Even if it was a feasible plan what troops are they going to use? The 101st Airborne was deployed in northern Iraq ... so what miraculous airborne division are they going to waste in mere border patrols? We didn't even have enough troops to open up a full sized second front in the North ... yet we have enough troops to patrol a border that's hundreds of miles long AND stave off any military action directed at them?

quote:

Gathering intelligence is the most important aspect of the war, especially as there was a possibility that WMD and foreign crack commandos might enter Iraq from Syria. Not having extra personnel to look out for Baathists can't be a problem. America must have a surplus of well-trained patrols as a reserve for crisis situations, not to mention the possibility of getting help from the other Coalition countries. A Spec-Op in an American uniform is an American to the enemy, no matter what country he's really from

I don't really understand what you're saying here ...

quote:

The Baathists knew that if they remain in Iraq, angry mobs will tear them to shreds. And Americans knew that they need to escape as soon as possible.

Yes but the pace of the American advance into Iraq astounded everyone. Nobody could have predicted that the Republican Guard would have collapsed as quickly as it did. And the vast majority of the republican guard was concentrated around Baghdad for the final battle. The baathists could not have predicted that they would have fallen so quickly ... if so why even put up a fight initially? They much like everyone else was anticipating a bloody battle where the Americans would be bogged down in city fighting.

quote:

I'm not sure if the intelligence stories I read were fabricated, but they claimed that there were hundreds of escapees.

The US really only cares about the 55 top level officials

quote:

The first intelligence comes from SEALS and SAS teams patrolling in hiding holes along the main routes. That allows quick air bombardment of targets, or at least gathering more specific intelligence with planes and satellites.

How many spec-ops troops do you think there are? Certainly not enough to cover the ENTIRETY of the Iraqi border. And the vast majority most certainly have better things to do then go camping in the desert waiting for somebody to happen by ... like crippling the defenses of Baghdad.

quote:

The Neoconservatives expected Iraq to fall within a couple of days, as evidenced by their minimal troop suggestions. Besides, Rumsfeld has extra connections to the US Spec-Ops, so he had definitely briefed them to act quickly to neutralize the Baathists. Even before the start of the war, they were already doing it in the centres of the biggest cities, not to mention the slightly safer task of tracking important military personnel outside cities. Destroying the enemy's Command & Control is among the most important tasks, so I suspect that the US actually bombed down most of the escaping convoys. The Spetsnaz page I posted earlier suggested that the Soviet had planned to eliminate the top European leadership within days, so SEALS and SAS doing it in Iraq is just as feasible. Of course, not all Baathists could be caught, but the American claims that huge masses of them managed to pass the border unnoticed goes against the rudimentary knowledge of special operations. Besides, those Baathists were so desparate to flee that they must have tried it whether they had Syrian permission or not. Why would Syria help Iraqi Baathists who are now poorer than beggars, hunted by everybody, and will get Syria bombed without any possibility of ever benefitting Syria?

But Baghdad was SUPPOSED to fall by an armed revolt from the civilians. Instead the regime retained control until tanks rolled into the center. How were they to predict the regime were to flee so quickly when they all proclaimed a fight to the death in Baghdad? Again we're not concerned with low level baathists we just want the big guys. And the potential for them to be able to sneak across a border hundreds of miles long during a time of turmoil is relatively easy. And these top officials likely have significant political connections and monetary accounts such that the Syrians would be willing to hide them.

this is getting redicilous now...the war on iraq qasnt justified..and if and i hope not,the us will attack syria..offcourse without any justification it will turn out to be a world war..syria is no iraq..every syrian will fight to the death..i am personally tryin to feel its a war against all arabs..i truly hope it doesnt come to that..

quote:

Originally posted by tranceaholic this is getting redicilous now...the war on iraq qasnt justified..and if and i hope not,the us will attack syria..offcourse without any justification it will turn out to be a world war..syria is no iraq..every syrian will fight to the death..i am personally tryin to feel its a war against all arabs..i truly hope it doesnt come to that..

well there was alot of similar talk as we were preparing for war with iraq, but it all panned out much better than expected (for the US anyway), so i wouldn't make any predictions just yet...but i still fear that what u say just mite come true

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Of course, individual top Baathists may have been transported out of Iraq via smuggling routes and good luck. But those 55 guys must have had their families and bodyguards with them, so we are talking about large-scale escapes. So many car convoys simply driving out of the country doesn't sound credible, considering that the attack had been planned for a decade.

We don't know the details of how they escaped, where they escaped to, or even WHEN they escaped ... you're simply speculating that these guys made a huge show of an exit that was easily spotted by US satellites, right as the tanks were knocking on Baghdad's door.

quote:

No-one prevented the Americans from bringing in enough troops necessary for effective border patrols The invasion was carried out according to the American's timetable, so the Americans could have waited until the new troops arrived, and after that, the extra troops could have secured the Iraqi-Syrian border as the first step of the invasion.

The primary goal of the campaign was not to watch a border for 55 high level Iraqis ... the goal of the campaign was to destroy the Iraqi Republican Guard and remove the regime from power. The whole concept of postponing committed plans such that a DIVISIONAL strength force can be put in place on a whole new front, and STAY in place to watch the border for 55 men is a little bit preposterous. Yes it would have been NICE if we could have secured the entire border to prevent an escape but it was militarily unfeasible at the time. The US has a lot of resources but it doesn't have unlimited resources as you so imply.

quote:

Escalation was mentioned as one of the biggest risks of the invasion. The American military planners knew this, and if they had wanted to prevent the escalation, they would have simply made sure that the majority of Baathists will be confined inside Iraq. Surely it would have made sense to wait a few weeks for the arrival of the extra border patrol troops to guarantee this major war objective. Besides, in Afghanistan insufficient border patrols were reported to have been the reason why so many Al-Qaidas got across the border. The Americans were confident that with better patrols, the Afghanistan branch of Al-Qaida could have been obliterated. The Americans hardly make the same mistake twice in a row by accident.

An ultimatum had been given ... what would we have done after that? Wait a few weeks after the ultimatum had expired and THEN attack? There are timetables at stake that can't be put off to ensure that a border is secure ... couldn't the americans have assumed that witht the lightning speed of their attack that Baghdad would be quickly encircled before the regime could escape??? Why is that such an unlikely scenario? Escalation in what way? Look, you're missing the point. This was a military campaign with military objectives. Destroy the republican guard, remove the regime from power, and capture any high level officials in place. It was assumed that most of the Baathist's would remain in Baghdad since they all insinuated in their propoganda that they would remain to carry out the fight to the bitter end.

quote:

It's not necessary to guard the entire border, only the main routes that car convoys could use, and possibly the most likely side routes and smuggling paths that the US was aware of. As to Spec-Ops being able to survive against enemy with artillery and tanks, that's exactly the environment in which Spec-Ops operate, and they must have been in and out of the Iraqi-Syrian border area for months before the attack. Small patrols simply hide, or avoid most enemies. Most Republican Guards were near the major Iraqi cities, so the Iraqi-Syrian border may have been feasible operating ground. Some of the most heavy American Spec-Ops activity actually DID occur near the Iraqi-Syrian border. Those Spec-Ops were guarding the area, so that no missiles could be transferred from Syria to Iraqi soil. There were also many Arab volunteers trying to enter Iraq, which would have given a minor additional boost to Saddam's efforts. The American border patrols took out missiles and many incoming Saddam-supporting Arabs, so simultaneously they could haven taken out most fleeing Baathists. As soon as they spotted Iraqis, they called in air strikes just the same whether the enemy was moving into the country or out of the country.

Spec ops aren't invincible against regular troops and they aren't equipped or designed to fight regular battles against regular army formations. They are designed to go after specific targets such as scud missiles, leadership targets, high level objectives, etc. They aren't equipped to simply patrol the desert on an open mission looking for party officials and taking them out if they find them. Additionally, how do you know that they didn't eliminate a lot of leadership targets? Just because it's not big in the news it doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact of the matter is though that we are both SPECULATING as to what happened. We will probably never even know to the full extent what their role or their impact was. As much as we don't really know HOW these 55 officials left. Saying that they all left in their presidential limosines with flags flying saying "look at me look at me!" is insinuating that they are STUPID, STUPID men. Even a dimwitted nut would know that they needed to keep a low profile, leave disguissed as a civilian, etc.

quote:

The pace of the advance cannot have suprised the planners. Both Baathists and Americans had been on high alert for weeks, in case there had been a major uprising in Baghdad by the Shiites or Republican Guard officers. So even before the war started, the Americans must have been prepared to put up a fast border control if necessary.

Yes once Baghdad and any major strong points were secure or surrounded. Then the border control can be put up. And I think the advance did surprise both the Americans and the Baath's because there was simply no resistance ... virtually none at all.

quote:

Camping in the desert next to the most likely routes to gather intelligence is probably one of the most important tasks of Spec-Ops. It's unlikely that the Coalition has so few Spec-Ops that they couldn't simultaneously take care of intelligence gathering and actively targeting enemies. Border patrols do not need the full scope of Spec-Ops training, as the guys only sit in a hole monitoring the traffic, so the lack of skilled American soldiers doesn't seem a plausible cause.

We probably did have operations going on ... we just didn't catch the big fish. I have a funny feeling we're going to be arguing these two points back and forth with nobody else caring and neither of us agreeing ...

quote:

I personally can't understand why any country would be interested in hiding the Iraqi Baathists. They have few political friends, and, anyway, political loyalty only applies as long as they are in power or have a possibility of restoring power, which is no longer the case. They hardly enjoy much personal loyalty, as the Iraqi and Syrian baathists have been bitter enemies. Finally, the Iraqi Baathist money would be of no use to the Syrians, as the Americans would invade and take that money, not to mention Syrians' country and lives.

Well if everybody hated everybody so much why did Iraq have a secret pipeline going to Syria to deliver oil outside of the oil for food program? Why was Syria a large arms supplier to Iraq? My point is is that there were probably a lot of high level connections. Do I know what they were ... no. But neither do you.

quote:

It finally looks like the Neocons have scrapped this propaganda about Syria hiding Baathists and their WMD, and come open about their plans in Syria. The real goal is regime change, or in other words "the liberation of Syria" (just like the "liberation of Iraq"). Here's info about Richard Perle asking the congress to draft and pass a Syrian Liberation Act: http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030416-64307592.htm Neoconservative Richard Perle, a leading hawk in the Iraq debate, yesterday called for Congress to pass a "Syrian Liberation Act" modeled on the 1998 law that made regime change in Baghdad official U.S. policy.

Yes Perle does have strong ties to Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc. and yes his views on Iraq did coincide with their views on the Iraqi threat, but his opinions in no way imply the opinions of the united states government as Mr. Leach implies:

quote:

Mr. Leach told French television during the weekend that the French should ignore Mr. Perle, ex-chairman of a Pentagon advisory panel and a former assistant secretary of defense. "Mr. Perle is not the United States government," he said on France 5 television. "He is a private citizen who does not speak on behalf of the American administration, and I hope we will not pay attention to what he says and the French won't listen to him."

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030415-24158308.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Yep, I'm sure the US did eliminate lots of Baathist leaders inside Iraq before they had a chance to escape to Syria. During the war there were daily reports of Spec-Ops and Air Support raids on local Baath party officials. It now seems that not as many Iraqi leaders got to Syria as reported earlier. Many top Baathists have been found hiding inside Iraq. More importantly, there are now indications that some of the "intelligence info" about huge masses of top-level Baathists escaping to a Syrian luxury resort with help from Syria's Government was simply BS. The journalists went to investigate the resort, and didn't find any signs the resort was being used as a Baathist hideout. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...,940877,00.html This pretty much confirmed my suspicions that some intelligence sources (not necessarily official) are releasing false propaganda to stir up further regime changes in the Middle-East. Untruthful intelligence also has relevance to the WMD question. There are signs that the extent of secret WMD projects in Iraq and Syria has been used as a Neocon pretext. For example, Neocons attacked heavily the CIA reports about the improbability of a Saddam-Al-Qaida link, and even set up their own small intelligence service to discredit the reports. http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/22/dreyfuss-r.html Moreover, the credibility of the latest intelligence (coming from unidentified sources) about Syria's joint WMD project with Iraq is still unconfirmed, and may originate from the same politically motivated intelligence sources who exaggerated the WMD situation in Iraq.

Vesa! No offense but you're jumping across the fence all over the place in order to match and put forth your common thesis! First you imply that US special forces and the government specifically ALLOWED high level baath party members to cross the border to provide for a reason to invade Syria ... now you're implying that special operations was IN FACT effective in eliminating these officials from crossing the border, and that propoganda is being released by (whoever other than the neocons?) to provide a pretext for an invasion.

Likewise, you forecasted that Iraqi WMDs would be easily found and broadcasted to the world following the Iraqi war in order to provide justification ... now you're stipulating that the Neocons are PURPOSEFULLY concealing these findings to strike the anti-war movement at its weakest!

Then when it seemed like imminent war with Syria, as you forecasted, was not going to happen, you stated that the pressure on the Bush administration to deal with Syria through diplomatic channels alone, was a signal that the Neocon warmongering desires would be put on hold for the time being as a result of public opinion ...

I would perhaps be more accepting of your theory, given some of the articles you present, except for the fact that your overall premise and thesis NEVER CHANGES despite the rapidly evolving facts that occur around us. Rather than a thesis that evolves around the facts presented, it seems that in your opinion, the facts revolve around the thesis presented. I'm very hesistant to adopt such a static theory given the fact that much of what we use as evidence are secondary sources rather than primary sources.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Then the Anti-War Camp will keep on sleeping, and only wake up when the US carries out small-scale military operations in Syria or North Korea (the plans are already reported to be drawn up). But then the Anti-War Camp will again accept the bombings of Syrian targets if Bush can only show that a few Iraqi Baathists are hiding in Syria, or that there are WMD in Syria (this is not a secret; every well-read person already knows this).

I actually posted here that the Pentagon had plans for bombing N. Korea, however, I argued in that posting that it was more so of a bluff or a diplomatic tactic rather than actual intent on going through with it. The fact that the Pentagon is drawing up plans in itself means nothing. It's the job of the pentagon to draw up war contingencies on nearly everything from an invasion of Canada to World War III with Russia in case such a scenario should ever arise. Plans were drawn up to bomb N. Korea in 1993 by the Pentagon under the "dovish" Clinton administration as well so it is nothing new:

http://www.news.com.au/common/story...0%255E2,00.html

And actually Syria is a whole separate issue from N. Korea because N. Korea constitutes a volatile world threat. So I wouldn't be surprised if the Pentagon places very close attention to that peninsula. I've always stated that no military action will be taken against Syria and I'll stand by my words until the bitter end.

And if you think that the neocons or whatever are planning military operations against N. Korea have no fear! For the almighty, all powerful PNAC has spoken:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/northkorea-041403.htm

And since Bush is their stool pidgeon, and they are the true power behind our government, hope I'm not being too sarcastic, we can rest easy knowing that military operations will never happen right ?

At any rate even head honcho Mr. Neocon himself (wolfowitz) said:

quote:

Of particular significance today, Mr. Wolfowitz poured cold water on the idea of an attack on North Korea's nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, an idea often ascribed to the administration's hawks. In March 1999, he dismissed the idea of a "neat and safe military operation, that in some antiseptic way could eliminate the North Korean nuclear problem. . . . First of all, we wouldn't know what to attack. . . . [W]e are . . . reasonably certain that there's a lot there that we don't know about and couldn't get at." Moreover, North Korean retaliation, and the resulting war on the Korean peninsula, he said, would be "absolutely devastating."

So if you're going to argue a neocon dominated US government theory then you better modify your position on what the US is gonna do next with N. Korea. Additionally, reuters just reported that the US is thinking about reducing military forces in the Gulf overall ...

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=2614386

This does not bode well for your predictions about syria as well.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.