GUESS WHO HAS SADDAM'S "NON-EXISTENT" WMD?

THE SUN, United Kingdom ^ | By TREVOR KAVANAGH

[Traianus]

Syria nuke threat

By TREVOR KAVANAGH Political Editor

SYRIA’S President Assad yesterday warned he will NEVER scrap terror weapons as long as Israel has nukes.

The vow supported fears his country — named by America as part of the Axis of Evil — has a chemical and biological weapons stockpile.

British-educated Assad said: “It is not difficult to get most of these weapons anywhere in the world and they can be obtained at any time.”

The leader, who worked in the UK as an eye specialist, is believed to be pro-western.

But he is a puppet head of state who risks being toppled if he ignores hardliners.

His weak position was revealed in a Daily Telegraph interview when he refused to condemn suicide bomb attacks on Israel.

He said: “It’s a reality we can’t control. Only Israel, when it stops killing, won’t have any more killing.”

The admission came amid evidence that Pakistan has sold nuclear weapon technology to Libya in the past two years. Pakistan is also suspected of offering nuclear capability to Saudi Arabia.

Libya’s link with Pakistan was revealed by an American official in Washington. He said in a New York newspaper interview: “Some Pakistani scientists operate as though they’re running ‘Nukes ’R’ Us’.”

The source said there was NO evidence that Pakistan’s President Musharraf knew of the moves.

Britain and America scored a major coup last month when Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi offered to surrender his nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

[Traianus]

Serious trouble for DEM, I guess...

[Keith in Iowa]

On hearing this report, Senator Jonh Kerry said, "Oh F ".

[justa-hairyape]

If Syria acquired some of Saddam's WMD while the UN was stalling and slowing the US led toppling of Saddam, the UN is responsible for proliferating these WMD's to Syria.

[claudiustg]

1. The Syrians cannot repel either an Israeli or a US attack.
2. Their Arab friends will be of no help at all.
3. They saw the pictures of Saddam getting his "checkup".
4. They owe us money.

So, what are they mouthing off for? It would almost appear that they are squealing on themselves. I think its let's make a deal time.

[MedicalMess]

Hmmm... what to do?

Turks to the north, Israel to the southwest, Americans to the east in Iraq, and American cooperative Jordanians to the south.

What's a terrorist to do?

Guess they'll just have to squeeze out over Lebanon and drown in the Mediterranean Sea.

[Atlantic Friend]

Or an even simpler option : Syria has no WMDs (except mustard gas and the likes), but knows Israel has nukes. So Syria says : let's negotiate for a nuclear-free Middle-East, Israel gets rid of his nuclear arsenal and we get rid of our mysterious WMDs...Of course, that does not affect Syria as much as it would affect Israel, should Syria plan a fifth Israel-Arab war. Given the regional demographics, Israel needs to keep the nukes, while Syria's defense (or even attack) power is largely unaffected by the destruction of chemical warheads.

It reminds me of the trick played on the Soviets by the Reagan administration. The United States told Russia they were ready to begin another round of negotiations for the global reduction of armed forces, EXCEPT for the "Star Wars" program. Russia panics, because they see this as the proof that the United States are ready to deploy a fully operational antimissile satellite grid. Russia does not have the money to build its own system, and gives more than intended in the negotiations.

I think Syria has an empty hand, but tries to win the game nonetheless...

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I thought there were only three Axis of Evil nations, Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

[Ragirl]

On hearing this report, Senator Jonh Kerry said, "Oh F ".

And Tommy Dasshole is deeply saddened too.

[Thinkin' Gal]

The leader, who worked in the UK as an eye specialist, is believed to be pro-western.

Believed by whom? Carter and Peres?

Well, if Bashar has quite the stockpile, Damascus' condition as a ruinous heap may not come about by hand of Americans or Israelis. It warms the heart to envision one huge work accident, set off by some nitwit who can't set the clock on his bomb right, sparking an exploding, hideous inferno.

:-)

[justa-hairyape]

Socialists Baathist thugs all act alike. Apparently Saddam was insinuating he had WMD by not complying completely with the UN's resolutions. Thus the US had justification for the invasion. Why would Saddam invite an American led first strike invasion if he did not have WMD ? Arab pride did not matter one bit to a man who surrendered without firing a shot. So where is his WMD ? His ace in the hole ?

Syria may also be following the same logical line of thinking that Saddam followed. Anyone with any functioning neurons realizes that Saddam must have kept some of his WMD. Why would he destroy it and then not admit to destroying it ? Again, forget about Arab pride. Saddam had none. Logically Syria should not invite an Israeli first strike by insinuating they have acquired WMD. The only justification for doing such is that they are anticipating an Israeli first strike is coming. The Israelis would not be planning a first strike unless they had a definitive reason too. Why would Syria solidify the justification for their own destruction if they did not have WMD ? Apparently the Baathist mind is a strange one.

[justa-hairyape]

Good points. But logically both Syria and Iraq cannot both be without WMD. Either we find WMD in Iraq, or we assume it escaped into Syria. The fact that Syria is insinuating such, either makes them as stupid as Saddam was or as potentially powerful as WMD can make them. They desire for the 'precious' is making them look like golem falling into the lava flow.

[tubebender]

I don't see Saddam moving all of his WMD to Syria with the possibility Syria might use them against him...

[justa-hairyape]

Syria and Iraq are/were governed by the same sadistic socialistic Baath party. Basically a small cabal of brutal thugs. Iraq certainly did not like its neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Turkey. They certainly would not have trusted the Jordanians. If his WMD left the country, they had to go into Syria. The other options are that they are still in Iraq or that he did indeed destroy them. The main defense the baathist apologists have for Saddam is that he could not 'admit' destroying them because that would show weakness. Anyone who chooses assured destruction over apparent weakness is a fool. We certainly gave him plenty of time to contemplate his destruction.

[Atlantic Friend]

Of course, Syria's having WMDs depends on what you put in that category.

Chemical warheads ? Well, yes, most probably, for artillery shells or surface to surface missiles. Either they made them themselves - the technology is 100-year old, after all - or they bought the warheads from the Soviets when Russia was heavily involves in the Middle-East. There's the problem of maintenance, as these warheads

Nuclear weapons ? I'll say no. The purpose of these weapons are to be displayed and to signal your enemies their cities could be turned into radioactive rubble any day. Given the ongoing conflict between Syria and Israel, Syria would have publicized the weapons to use it in negotiations.

That leaves us with biological warheads, and we know that Syria is among the few countries that are doing research on military-grade virus strains. But then again, if Syria really has something in store and wants to use it in negotiations, I find it strange they did not boast the weapons, especially since there's a ongoing threat of US invasion.

If you were Syria, and if you were willing to buy some time both to survive and to engage the negotiations, wouldn't you show to the other players you're not bluffing ?

[justa-hairyape]

Your points are well taken. However I dont think we can analyze the Middle East the same way we analyze the rest of the world. The countries surrounding Israel have invaded them without warning in the past. Many of Israel's neighbors have sworn 'death to Israel'. They are under constant suicide attack. Israel is also the only nuclear country in the world that has had ballistic missiles fired at it while it possessed nuclear weapons. The only reason Israel did not retaliate and nuke Saddam during Gulf War I was due to restraints placed on it from the coalition. Do you think if ballistic missiles were launched from Russia to the US that we would sit back and send scientist to the impact areas to look for signs of WMD ? No we would not. We would launch retaliation before the Russian missiles reached their apex. Israel has already shown it will strike first to prevent their neighbors from becomming nuclear. So it is clear that no one in the Middle East can pound their chests and say they have acquired nuclear weapons if they actually have. Israel would instantly try to destroy the nuclear capability with a first strike. Judging by their past behavior, we would probably realize that one of these middle eastern countries was about to go nuclear by examining the aftermath of the Israeli strikes. Chemical weapons are another story. A launching of chemical weapons can be survived and Israel is the best equipped country on the planet for surviving such an attack. No one in their right state of mind would fire chemicals at Israel without expecting retalitory nuclear annihilation. The remaining threats are biological and dirty nuclear. If the radical Islamic terrorists are going to utilize WMD on Israel, Western Europe Southern Russia or the US coalition, it will probably be biological or dirty nukes.

France really needs to start worrying. The Chirac and Saddam deal was much like Hitler and Stalins. Now that Saddam is gone, there is nothing France can do for the radical Islamic Front. Taking over the French Government along with its nuclear capabilities is the best option radical Islam has. The Russians have shown the capability to defend their home turf. France has not.

[Atlantic Friend]

You make very interesting points too. Israel would most certainly not tolerate a nuclear hostile nation on its borders, particularly Syria. But wouldn't that give some credence to my theory ? Given the excellent penetration of Israeli intelligence service (as proved by the Osirak raid and many other operations), surely Israel would have acted if they thought the Syrian proposal was backed by any nuclear capability.

As for Israel not retaliating during the first Iraq war, the country showed a remarkable restraint, that's for sure, and that tells a lot about this country's nerves and its confidence in its allies. The modified FROG missiles fired at Israel could have easily been met with a devastating response, although I don't know if Israel would have fired nuclear missiles.

Finally, I have to entirely disagree with you regarding Islam and France. I know it's a popular theory - probably because of its sensationalism - but there's absolutely no fact to back it up. My country is not in the verge of a Islamic takeover, neither in the streets nor in the corridors of the Elysee Palace. This country - and particularly in its institutions - is Catholic. This Republic, for all her secularism, if of Judeo-Christian stock. Don't you think that Islamic radicals willing to go nuclear could more easily pry into Pakistan arsenals ?

[justa-hairyape]

I believe the general consensus on what Iraq had before the recent US military action was biological and chemical WMD only. No one thought they had an actual nuclear WMD capability. However, Bush stated that Saddam was pursuing nuclear WMD and dangerously close. I believe the consensus was within a few years. You are correct in stating that if they had them, Israel would have probably acted. After all Israel has destroyed a nuclear reactor in a nearby nation that was only suspected of being able to produce nuclear weapons grade material.

There is a history in that region however of not admitting a country has nuclear capability when they actually do. Initially Israel kept their possession a secret. I think however that Syria's possession of Anthrax and a Dirty Nuclear bomb is a more credible threat to Israel. After all, they share a common border only seperated by UN peacekeepers.

I have to admit that I have never visited France myself. Yes, my thoughts are probably tainted by the current popular anti-french sentiments. However, history does demonstrate that Charles Martel kept Western Europe from becomming Muslim by making a stand in Tours. In fact, when Mitterand was President of France they backed the coalitions Gulf War action. We in America do not understand why Chirac would behave like he did with this recent action. He also had a personal relationship with Saddam that is well documented.

There has been some questioning of Saddams connection with Chirac even in the French media. Although I think that area of investigation has not been given much attention. That in itself seems odd. One would think the left would be all over Chirac. France is in a wierd state right now, if there was a serious terrorist attack within France, the left would blame America. That does not bold well for your predicament. Noone can come to your aid. We conservatives know the left in our own country will easily sacrifice national security for short term political gain.

Perhaps as our 'good friends', France would kindly let us know the current location of their two operational and one soon to be operational nuclear warhead armed submarines ? And, we would probably like to know if there are any muslims in their crews ?

[Atlantic Friend]

Yes, Israel would have acted, no doubt about it. After all, it was in Iraq that their warplanes bombed the Osirak reactor, after giving France a hint so our technicians could avoid the place. That Saddam's was getting close to nuclear capacity I'd say yes, but most probably in 1991. After the first Iraq war, I don't know, I'm no expert but it baffles me as to how it would have been possible to run a secret nuclear program when your country is half-occupied and closely watched by Coalition countries. But quite frankly, getting rid of Saddam was good enough a political objective to me, WMDs or no WMDs. As your President said "Good riddance, Saddam Hussein, the world is much better without you".

The France-Iraq relationship is, of course, well documented. The whole story is that the Western world, be it my country, yours, or many others, did prefer Saddam Hussein's Iraq over Khomeini's Iran. The prospect of a hostile takeover of the whole Middle-East by the radical Iranians did create some strange bedfellows. Chirac, Rumsfeld, and many other western officials went to Baghdad to offer all kinds of support to Saddam. he was a SOB, but, as one American once said, he was OUR SOB. taking him down was the right thing to do, no doubt about it.

As for Muslims in the French Army, well, of course there are some, but they are a tiny minority - as in the US military. You see, our Army is a very traditional institution. During the late 90s, there were questions about extreme-right influence in the Army, and the military security police, the DPSD, was called to make inquiries. The result was that there was a religion that was particularly active in our Army : Christianity. Our corps of officers is full of traditional Catholics, and the rank and file does not attract many French-Arabs. Believe me Muslims are in no position to take over. I live in Poitiers, the town where Charles Martel win his victory against Abd-el-Rahman II, so maybe I get optimistic about it.

I hope our transatlantic relation will soon improve, and that we'll soon realize the present hostility serves only our common enemies' interests. Many French people were shocked by the despicable diplomatic battle engaged by Villepin, and the fact he allied with such human-rights champions as Russia, China and Syria. They were also shocked by the level of incompetence he displayed in the Ivory Coast affair. I happen to know some of our PM ex-staffers, and they tell me Villepin is THE driving Anti-American force in the French Government, and that he has the greatest influence on our President. The whole diplomatic shenanigans still ashame and anger me to this day, and I really think US diplomacy should drive some wedge between Villepin and the rest of the Government.

[justa-hairyape]

Supporting one tyrant to counter a larger and more deadly tyrant had to be done from time to time. In a perfect world populated with nothing but righteous governments, we would not have to support one bad tyrant against another one. However, this world is very far from perfect. Having done bad in the past for a greater common good should not in anyway prevent us from destroying the little monster we created after the big monster has been tamed. This is precisely what was done and it was the correct thing to do. The left in America however seems to ignore the application of these simple procedures. The only greater common good they see is the increase in their own political fortunes.

Its good to know that the French are keeping close watch on their military personnal. France also has hundreds of nuclear warheads stockpiled. It definitly does seem that there was some collusion within parts of the French government against the best interests of the US for purely false reasons. From what I understand the popular notion within the left is that the US knew that 911 was going to occur beforehand and may have actively participated. This screwed up logic is common amongst the left worldwide. They would blame their neighbor rather then pick up a gun and defend their neighbor. I hope that France is not being setup by forces aligned with radical muslims and perhaps our common enemies who are attempting to distance Western Europe from the west. Just one of your nuclear armed submarines could devastate dozens of large cities

As Jeff Head has demonstrated (Dragons Fury), in the long run the next great war will be taming the red dragon. Its going to be a very tough fight. For example, I needed to buy 4 picture frames for my business yesterday. The best price was Chinese made at Walmart. $5 for each 11x14 frame. In the long run the Chinese are going to have all the cash they need to do whatever they want. Its simple economics.