OT--"You're going to hear a lot in the future about weapons of mass destruction, including next week,"
 

John McCain. March 23, 2005.

http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/printDS/66915.php

"NOYB" wrote in message
...
John McCain. March 23, 2005.

http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/printDS/66915.php






John McCain sits on the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. I wonder how much of
the report will make mention of weapons shipped to Syria before the war?
grin

http://www.wmd.gov/about.html

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:36:08 -0500, NOYB wrote:


John McCain sits on the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. I wonder how much of
the report will make mention of weapons shipped to Syria before the war?
grin

http://www.wmd.gov/about.html

You are flogging a dead horse. The UN Resolutions required Saddam to
disarm. *If* Saddam shipped his weapons off to Syria before the war, he
was disarmed. So, no casus belli.

You seem to be locked into this Syria WMD thing. Syria has WMD. In fact,
their chemical WMD capability is considered unequaled in the middle-east.
I have said this before, there is no reason for Syria to accept Saddam's
second rate WMD. While you and I may not like the fact that Syria has
WMD, as a sovereign nation, they are completely within their rights to
have WMD.

Just to refresh your memory:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

ALBUQUERQUE - Sen. John McCain said Tuesday the conclusions of a
commission investigating intelligence failures on weapons of mass
destruction should not lead to new questions about whether the Iraq war
was justified.
"America, the world and Iraq is better off for what we did in bringing
democracy," McCain said.

Even IF America, the world, and Iraq are better off because of the war,
"bringing democracy" was not the repeated, repeated, and repeated reason
that George Bush gave for going to war. It was WMD, WMD, WMD. So, George,
where are the WMDs ??

I know some here believe they are in Syria. Anyone know if the Bush
administration stands behind that theory?

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:36:08 -0500, NOYB wrote:


John McCain sits on the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of
the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. I wonder how much
of
the report will make mention of weapons shipped to Syria before the war?
grin

http://www.wmd.gov/about.html

You are flogging a dead horse. The UN Resolutions required Saddam to
disarm. *If* Saddam shipped his weapons off to Syria before the war, he
was disarmed. So, no casus belli.

And what were the terms of the loan of WMD to Syria? Does Syria get to keep
the WMDs and used them as they see fit or is Syria supposed to return them
to Iraq at some future time?

You seem to be locked into this Syria WMD thing. Syria has WMD. In fact,
their chemical WMD capability is considered unequaled in the middle-east.
I have said this before, there is no reason for Syria to accept Saddam's
second rate WMD. While you and I may not like the fact that Syria has
WMD, as a sovereign nation, they are completely within their rights to
have WMD.

And, what will you say or do when Syria starts raining death down upon the
middle east? Will you still say that Syria is a sovereign nation and that
they can do what they want with their WMDs?

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:21:56 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:36:08 -0500, NOYB wrote:


John McCain sits on the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. I wonder how much of
the report will make mention of weapons shipped to Syria before the war?
grin

http://www.wmd.gov/about.html

You are flogging a dead horse. The UN Resolutions required Saddam to
disarm. *If* Saddam shipped his weapons off to Syria before the war, he
was disarmed. So, no casus belli.

You seem to be locked into this Syria WMD thing. Syria has WMD. In fact,
their chemical WMD capability is considered unequaled in the middle-east.
I have said this before, there is no reason for Syria to accept Saddam's
second rate WMD. While you and I may not like the fact that Syria has
WMD, as a sovereign nation, they are completely within their rights to
have WMD.

Just to refresh your memory:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html


Could 'timing' play a role Mr. Thunder? I can envision this scenario next, "He
may have had them when the troops boarded the ship, but the WMD were in Syria
when the troops landed. Therefore, no casus belli!"


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:36:08 -0500, NOYB wrote:


John McCain sits on the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of
the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. I wonder how much
of
the report will make mention of weapons shipped to Syria before the war?
grin

http://www.wmd.gov/about.html

You are flogging a dead horse. The UN Resolutions required Saddam to
disarm. *If* Saddam shipped his weapons off to Syria before the war, he
was disarmed. So, no casus belli.


Offsite storage isn't the same as disarming.

You seem to be locked into this Syria WMD thing. Syria has WMD. In fact,
their chemical WMD capability is considered unequaled in the middle-east.
I have said this before, there is no reason for Syria to accept Saddam's
second rate WMD.

Except to protect a fellow Baathist regime. Oh year...and except for the
billions of dollars and billions of barrels of oil that Saddam sent to
Assad.

While you and I may not like the fact that Syria has
WMD, as a sovereign nation, they are completely within their rights to
have WMD.

They're concealing the fact that Saddam had WMD...making them complicit in
the deaths of 1500+ American GI's.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:51:46 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


And what were the terms of the loan of WMD to Syria? Does Syria get to
keep the WMDs and used them as they see fit or is Syria supposed to return
them to Iraq at some future time?

What loan? Somewhere along the line, you are just going to have to accept
the fact there were no WMD. Let me ask you something. Do you remember
the Iraqi planes that fled to Iran in the Gulf War? Well, Saddam never
got them back. Do you actually believe he was dumb enough to give Syria
WMD? Before answering, remember Syria sided with Iran in the Iran-Iraq
War and also sided with the UN/US in the first Gulf War.

http://216.26.163.62/2002/me_iraq_05_03.html


And, what will you say or do when Syria starts raining death down upon the
middle east? Will you still say that Syria is a sovereign nation and that
they can do what they want with their WMDs?

Oh please. If we are going to eliminate all weapons, perhaps we should
start by not adding to the mix. I'm sure you have heard of the F-16 deal
with Pakistan. Let's see, a semi-stable nuclear capable country involved
in a border dispute with another nuclear capable country, a country with
*confirmed* ties to al Qaeda and the Taliban , a country with *proven*
ties to nuclear proliferation . . . Personally, I think Syria is of less
concern.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4384597.stm

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:29:38 +0000, NOYB wrote:

Except to protect a fellow Baathist regime. Oh year...and except for the
billions of dollars and billions of barrels of oil that Saddam sent to
Assad.

Fellow Baathist? The Syrian and Iraq Baath Parties share a name only.
They have been diametrically opposed, sometimes violently.

http://www.answers.com/topic/ba-ath-party



While you and I may not like the fact that Syria has WMD, as a sovereign
nation, they are completely within their rights to have WMD.

They're concealing the fact that Saddam had WMD...making them complicit in
the deaths of 1500+ American GI's.

And if George W. Bush concealed the fact that Iraq had no WMD?

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...
John McCain. March 23, 2005.

http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/printDS/66915.php






John McCain sits on the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. I wonder how much of
the report will make mention of weapons shipped to Syria before the war?
grin

http://www.wmd.gov/about.html


Obviously, very little:

Some reporting indicated that Iraq may have moved biological and chemical
weapons

stockpiles to Syria just prior to the start of the war in March 2003. CIA,
Title Classified (Dec.

13, 2004) (citing one classified intelligence report (March 2003) from a
foreign service). The

security situation along the border between Iraq and Syria prevented the ISG
from conclusively

ruling out the possibility that such weapons were transported across the
border. Interview with

Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence Charles Duelfer
(Oct. 13, 2004).