Syria agrees to hide Iran's Nukes

ClickyWell now, this is interesting. If Syria is willing to hide Iran's WMD, could they...COULD THEY....just maybe...have been willing to do the same thing with Saddam?This message has been edited by Tal, 12-20-2005 02:41 PM

---

"Damn. I could build a nuclear bomb, given the fissionable material, but I can't tame my computer." (1VB)Jerome - French Rocket Scientist

Who knows?But since the current US adminstration has pretty much conceded that Iraq didn't have any WMD it's rather a moot point isn't it?Actually it would be a fairly damning indictment of the US policy in Iraq if your unsupported speculation had any element of truth in it.Remember the official line - part of the reason for invading Iraq was to stop WMDs getting into the hands of terrorists?What they succeeded in doing was moving WMD from Iraq to Syria - which I suspect has a much longer track record of supporting terrorism. Well they would have done if contemporary Iraqi WMDs weren't a fantasy.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

I also don't know if it can technically be called "hiding" something, if you tell the world where you're going to hide it ahead of time.

---

"I fail to comprehend your indignation, sir. I've simply made the logical deduction that you are a liar."
-Spock

Anyone have a subscription to Jane's? I can't find anything abput Syria, Iran and Nukes on the part I can get into. The only place this info seems to exist so far is the link Tal supplied.Not that I dont trust you Tal, but I have found that a lot of websites need to be fact checked. I like to make sure there are corroborating sources.

I don't have a subscription but the artile is listed as one of those available on Jane's indexHowever, there is still no connection between this agreement and Iraqi WMDs. In addition, as many of us said at the time, invading Iraq could do nothing but insure that any WMDs that did exist would get dispersed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I found that, but would like to see the text to make sure that the link Tal provided is accurately portraying the report

why is it that we aren't supporting the student revolution in syria again?

Boy, how is that tiny country going to hide all those nuclear weapons? What with their own and Iraq's nuclear arsenal (well and biochem too) already well hidden. After all we could spot them by satellite and intel in Iraq and that's a huge country. Yet we can't find them in Syria.1) Anti Iraq War activists (like me) were pointing out preinvasion that if Iraq had WMDs that could be the result. So you are only supporting the fact that anti Iraq war activists would have been right and the Bush administration (who insisted invasion was the only way to secure the WMDs) were wrong. Indeed that means we totally LOST the Iraq War.2) But that is made moot (as another poster already mentioned) because there were no Iraqi WMDs. It turns out the AntiIraq War activists were right about another concern which was the accuracy of our intel. The Bush administration has conceded this quite clearly. Just last week Bush said it again and took responsibility for going to war on bad intel.Thus, thankfully the Anti Iraq War activists were correct about the lack of WMDs, so that we don't have to worry that Anti Iraq War activists might have been right about weapons being hidden in Syria.Or maybe that's why Bush is insisting that there were no WMDs? Maybe he's just trying to cover up the fact that there were but that would mean he made an even bigger mistake? Take your pick Tal, that's all you have left.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Because who would trust students with nukes?(BTW: You know revolutions would involve killing right? Would you support one if you knew they'd end up executing people?)

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"citing diplomatic sources"I couldn't find this claim anywhere except in Jane's and a couple of conservative news services, all citing Jane's anonymous "diplomatic sources."Perhaps the WH could get someone to fake a copy of the treaty? Blair could say the intelligence is now incontrovertible, and we could invade Syria with the same self-assurance with which we invaded Iraq. Probably the Syrian people would welcome us with open arms, strewing flowers in our path...everybody loves invading armies, always have.I never trusted anonymous news sources--"senior White House officials say"..."a senior intelligence officer explained"...and since the hyped-up launch of the Iraq invasion, I trust them even less.There may be a treaty, and it may say what Jane's says it does; there may be no treaty at all.Maybe we (we being the WH, of course, the imperial and only true representatives of the people) could pay a drunken Syrian nursing a grudge and termed unreliable by the CIA to confirm the report. Then we could strip away the CIA's doubt--hell, even get the CIA Director to call it a slam dunk--share a summary of the report with Congress, and ask for an authorization to use all available force. Then, if it all goes bad later, we could say they saw the same intelligence.Ya gotta go with what works, right?This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 12-21-2005 09:28 AM

---

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!

Who wouldn't? It not only worked it got Tenet the highest civilian honor this nation awards.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

well naturally. but they would have started it instead of us going in there and forcibly removing a government and installing a new one that we think will like us.i'd sooner trust students with nukes than creepy old men with a superiority complex.