What possible reason could Saddam Hussein have for sending WMD to Syria?

[Sandpiper]

Knowing that the United States was about to invade his country, seeking his ouster, as well as his death, why would he send his most powerful weapons away to another country?

Wouldn't those circumstances be an ideal time to, I dunno, USE THEM!!!

And on a related note, how a big of a fucking idiot would you have to be to believe that's what happened?

[Deja Q]

1. Last I heard, Syria was buying from Russia... If Saddam gave all of his to

Syria, why buy more? I'd save the money for other things.

[Skittles]

2. none

it's a ridiculous theory desperate conservatives cling to because they don't want to face the fact that their precious King George is a lying piece of SHIT.

[bunny planet]

21. plus they are just arrogant enough to think they can lie to us again about

the WMD's being in Syria and attack that country too. My neo-con sister-in-law has been spouting this theory for the past year, ever since it became apparent we were not going to find them in Iraq. She says we didn't find them because Hussein already sent them to be hidden in Syria.

[Buddyblazon]

3. "What possible reason could Saddam Hussein have for sending WMD to Syria?"

"What possible reason could Saddam Hussein have for sending WMD to Syria?"

Simple...so we could invade them next...duh. (sarcasm/off)

[youngred]

4. It particularly doesn't work

when considered against the idea that Saddam was intending the insurgency all along and was just going to retreat to start guerilla warfare. If he was really intending that he would have given them to the insurgents to use against us.

[lenidog]

5. If he actually did do it

it would be beyond me what he would be thinking but then again he sent about a 100 of his best aircraft to Iran during the First Gulf War and never saw them again.

[Yupster]

9. Same thing I thought of lenidog

What did he send his planes to Iran for? They were his enemy.

[LynnTheDem]

11. NO he did not.

The planes that went to Iran were DEFECTORS.

[Yupster]

12. Maybe the WMD'd

defected to Syria.

Kinda like Godzilla. They got radioactive, got up and moved.

[jayfish]

14. You Are Correct Ma'am. -NT-

Jay

[lenidog]

20. Well if they were defectors

Then Saddam must have purged the hell out of the Iraqi airforce after that. I sure as hell would have if a 100 to a 150 of my pilots decided to jump ship taking the best aircraft with them.

[saltpoint]

6. Probably none.

But if those pesky WsMD are in Syria, why, the Bush administration will have an excuse to launch air strikes.

Gotta set the table before they can eat.

[Kagemusha]

7. They think Saddam types are united in hatred for the US.

Therefore they will act in unity.

Quite a leap.

[ragin_acadian]

8. here it is, the answer to all your questions:

Syria bought silkworm missiles from China about the same time we sold chemical weapons to saddam in the 80's.

so you KNOW those silkworm missiles were built by sweatshop labour, and were inferior to the good ol' US of A ones we sold to Iraq. So Saddam had the good shit, and Syria had the kind of defective product you normally find at Wal Mart or infomercials at three in the morning on the USA network. Syria just needed an upgrade, and found a fellow mid-eastern state, with some surplus US of A WMD's.

if you don't believe me, find out for yourself - send a stamped, self addressed envelope to the following:

Bank of Credit and Commerce International
C% Abu Nidal Terrorist Organization
Somewhere in International Waters,
CIA, near Oliver North's favorite fishing hole.

[LynnTheDem]

10. In 1994??? He hasn't had WMD or programs SINCE 1994.

As BOTH of bush's hand-picked rightwing weapons inspectors REPORT.

Problem is, rightwingnuts CAN'T READ. So they don't know that in fact their reports say NO WMD AND NO PROGRAMS FOR WMD IN THE PAST DECADE.

So sure, maybe OVER TEN YEARS AGO Saddam Hussein sent his WMD (which of course would all be useless gunk long ago) TO HIS ENEMY SYRIA.

And sure, maybe freepofascists have bits of actual brain in their heads.

But I DOUBT both.

[outcoldinminn]

13. But i can't help but wonder......

if he destroyed the wmd's, where is the evidence? we need that to really show the repukes.

[Mr Creosote]

15. That son-in-law of his that defected

advised the British (or US?) security services that all the WMDS were destroyed in the early 90s. But the decision was taken that his information was unreliable.

[LynnTheDem]

18. No, the decision was taken to CHERRY-PICK his info.

Notice that bush & Cartel used ALL of Hussein's son-in-law's WMD info; you can find many quotes from bush & Cartel saying "Hussein's own son-in-law told us...blah blah blah".

ALL of his WMD info was used by bush & Cartel...WITH ONE EXCEPTION; that he also had said ALL WMD was DESTROYED by 1992.

[htuttle]

16. If he didn't keep a record of destroying them, yet did destroy them

What, precisely, would constitute proof that they were destroyed?

Why isn't the burden of proof on the one party to say he still had chemical weapons, the Bush administration? If all the UN monitoring bodies said that they believed Iraq destroyed it's chemical weapons, isn't their opinion at least on an equal level with Bush's? They were the ones on the ground there, and had a much better opportunity to find something, but did not.

Why didn't Bush believe the UN? Was it simply because he wanted to fight a war, no matter the reason? Would that mean all the reasons we were given were lies, since Bush would have attacked even if they weren't true? (and most of them weren't).

What point is there in 'showing the repukes' at this point? They've gotten us tangled in a terribly destructive war that has damaged our country in many ways for the foreseeable future. Certainly for the rest of my lifetime.

'Showing them' one thing or another won't fix that! We're all still fucked either way, Republican or Democrat.

[LynnTheDem]

17. Go read Hans Blix' ACTUAL reports

There was plenty of evidence that a LOT of the UNACCOUNTED FOR wmd was destroyed.

The problem the UN had was the US's resolution, which called for EXACT AMOUNTS to be accounted for.

Blix's team found areas where very large amounts of chem had been destroyed. But they could not give an exact amount, it's not possible. So coz of the US's wording, Blix had to say "unaccounted for".

BLix made this clear again & again & aggain & again & again. But bush wanted war period.

[oldcoot]

19. Unfortunately, there are many idiots

The one argument that I have heard about Saddam Hussein was that he had the weapons of mass destruction but was afraid to use them because the U.S. would kill him or treat him brutally after catching him.