Doesn't Sound Like Good News

[Kathianne]

Remember those WMD's that didn't exist in Iraq? Remember the reports of where they were going?

http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/...oops_in_jordan

<!-- PRINCIPAL CONTENT--> <!-- BLOG WELL -->
<!-- BLOG POST --> <!-- BLOG HED --> Czech anti-chemical warfare troops are in Jordan

Posted By John Reed Wednesday, November 21, 2012 - 1:11 PM

Czech troops are in Jordan, providing technical expertise in case Syria's massive stockpile of chemical weapons is somehow unleashed by the Assad regime, rebels, or terrorists.


"We do have the traditional CBRN [chemical, biological, radialogical, nuclear warfare] specialization, we have our anti-chemical units in the Gulf, in Kuwait . . . we do have some even in Afghanistan, we do have some cooperation now with Jordan because of the danger with Syria," Czech Defense Minister Alexandr Vondra told Killer Apps yesterday while discussing the Czech military's special role within NATO: dealing with CBRN threats.


While there are reports of some of the Syrian government's advanced Russian-made SA-24 handheld surface-to-air missiles falling into rebel hands, we have yet to see evidence of Assad's chemical or biological weapons making their way out of their supposedly secure storage sites -- although there are reports of government troops moving the chem/bio weapons in an effort to keep them safe. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently told the White House that any military effort to secure Syria's chemical weapons would take tens of thousands of troops.

<fb:like class="fb_edge_widget_with_comment fb_iframe_widget" fb-xfbml-state="rendered" href="http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/21/czech_chem_warfare_are_troops_in_jordan" width="380" show_faces="false" background="none" font="arial" layout="standard"><iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?api_key=107151292643652&locale=en_US&sdk= joey&channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.facebook.c om%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D17%23cb% 3Df3e24bb55084922%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fki llerapps.foreignpolicy.com%252Ffff4fab7c1e428%26do main%3Dkillerapps.foreignpolicy.com%26relation%3Dp arent.parent&href=http%3A%2F%2Fkillerapps.foreignp olicy.com%2Fposts%2F2012%2F11%2F21%2Fczech_chem_wa rfare_are_troops_in_jordan&node_type=link&width=38 0&font=arial&layout=standard&colorscheme=light&sho w_faces=false&extended_social_context=false" class="fb_ltr" title="Like this content on Facebook." style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; height: 25px; width: 380px;" name="f9de777318bf7c" id="f1e3533f9c30546" scrolling="no"><br></iframe></fb:like>

[Drummond]

Remember those WMD's that didn't exist in Iraq? Remember the reports of where they were going?

http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/...oops_in_jordan

Quite. The issue of Syria's WMD's (and where they may well have come from) has been debated elsewhere on this forum.

I'm firmly of the opinion that what needs to be done to ensure WMD's don't get into terrorist hands, must be done. If that means a sizeable military force to confiscate them, then ... it does.

The alternative (this is surely obvious ?) is FAR worse.

[logroller]

Quite. The issue of Syria's WMD's (and where they may well have come from) has been debated elsewhere on this forum.

I'm firmly of the opinion that what needs to be done to ensure WMD's don't get into terrorist hands, must be done. If that means a sizeable military force to confiscate them, then ... it does.

The alternative (this is surely obvious ?) is FAR worse.

There are multiple alternatives-- What you imply as obvious and what the OP stated, that the Syrian military keep moving them to maintain their security.

[jimnyc]

If they use them and many die, the USA, the UN and others will be condemned for not doing anything. If anyone steps in to ensure they don't use them or for any type of inspections, they'll be told to mind their own business and let the Muslims handle their own affairs. There's little choice but to sit back and hope for the best, and if things worsen, don't doubt for a second that some of those weapons might walk away.

[Abbey Marie]

Interesting. I always wondered where those weapons got to.

[aboutime]

If they use them and many die, the USA, the UN and others will be condemned for not doing anything. If anyone steps in to ensure they don't use them or for any type of inspections, they'll be told to mind their own business and let the Muslims handle their own affairs. There's little choice but to sit back and hope for the best, and if things worsen, don't doubt for a second that some of those weapons might walk away.

jimnyc. Maybe we could all just hope...like good Obama'ites, and the people who are handling those WMD's...that Obama, and the Dems still insist..DO NOT EXIST. Will simply allow them into the wrong hands, and they will destroy their own Terrorist, Jihad troublemakers by Accident....ahmed.gif.......​Whoop's!

[Drummond]

There are multiple alternatives-- What you imply as obvious and what the OP stated, that the Syrian military keep moving them to maintain their security.

For that to work, and for Nation States - such as the US, for example - to trust in Syrian authorities and their military, there would have to be very good reason to suppose that each can establish, and maintain, good order in Syria.

So, state your grounds for confidence in such a status quo, Logroller.

Do you see stability in Syria, when others do not ? Do you see certainty that the Syrian regime will prevail ? On what basis ?

One such basis, I grant you, may be the deployment of WMD's by an increasingly beleaguered, and desperate, dictatorship .. willing to commit mass murder to maintain power.

Logroller, please, bring your Left-wing thought processes to bear, and explain to us why that may be a good and fully tolerable outcome.

There is a better alternative .. confiscation of those WMD's. The best likelihood for their non-use is brought to bear, and they're KNOWINGLY kept out of terrorists' hands. Now, do you really not think that is better ?

OR, is it preferable to just 'hope against hope' that terrorists don't get them ... leaving that chore to others, others whose own fight for survival might not make them the best custodians of such weapons ?

Logroller, enlighten us, please, as to why America's best interests are served by the whims of desperate men, people outside of your control ...

[Robert A Whit]

Remember those WMD's that didn't exist in Iraq? Remember the reports of where they were going?

http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/...oops_in_jordan

Though derided by Democrats who love living in denial, a rather high General who served Saddam Hussein gave us the truth when he stated with no bias that the Saddam WMD was taken to Syria ahead of the Bush invasion.

[logroller]

For that to work, and for Nation States - such as the US, for example - to trust in Syrian authorities and their military, there would have to be very good reason to suppose that each can establish, and maintain, good order in Syria.


So, state your grounds for confidence in such a status quo, Logroller.


Do you see stability in Syria, when others do not ? Do you see certainty that the Syrian regime will prevail ? On what basis ?


One such basis, I grant you, may be the deployment of WMD's by an increasingly beleaguered, and desperate, dictatorship .. willing to commit mass murder to maintain power.


Logroller, please, bring your Left-wing thought processes to bear, and explain to us why that may be a good and fully tolerable outcome.


There is a better alternative .. confiscation of those WMD's. The best likelihood for their non-use is brought to bear, and they're KNOWINGLY kept out of terrorists' hands. Now, do you really not think that is better ?


OR, is it preferable to just 'hope against hope' that terrorists don't get them ... leaving that chore to others, others whose own fight for survival might not make them the best custodians of such weapons ?


Logroller, enlighten us, please, as to why America's best interests are served by the whims of desperate men, people outside of your control ...

baathists, terrorists and WMDs...eerily familiar. That's what the experts said about Iraq. Only we found the terroists came to Iraq after, and the WMDs werent there...allegedly, having left for Syria???. Were they safe then, but not now? I beg your pardon, but im a little hung over from the last war that "America's interests" were being served under bad intel and hyperbolic logic--thats the status quo, and I'm hesitant to jump on board again.
But fine, I'll take a look.


To answer your question. No I don't think America's interst are best served by Syrian rebels, nor served by them at all. Never said otherwise. In this case I'd rather not defend something I do not believe-- some here might misinterpret my doing so as supporting rebels and terrorists. This is not the case. I'm defending what I believe is America's best interests. As an American, that is my right and my duty.
As for the status quo, lets just look at what role America has played in the Syrian civil war.
If assad's regime is as endangered of succumbing to terrorists as you claim, why wouldn't we assist Assad? For we have not supported Assad; we have approached the UN to condemn Assad-- which has the defacto effect of supporting the rebels, those people you claim are terrorists. So who is the enemy-- every party to the conflict? acting under that belief we will only create a greater power vacuum. Been there, done that. not gonna buy that this time. I liked Bush's you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists speech way better than your's anyways, loved his simplicity. It was still total bullshit, but I bought it. Now you try the same tired support, terrorists WMDs Baathists. Sorry Drummond, lightning doesn't strike twice; you'll need to manufacture a new and improved justification for foreign invasion. "Our best interest" isn't quite enough for me, nor a majority of the American people.




We give tacit support for the revolutionaries by appealing to the UN to condemn the regime. So you don't trust the rebels, nor the regime. Did you trust the regime before? You're playing imperialist, where your interests are supposedly the only ones that matter. Thats a good way to empower extremism, not combat it. See Libya and the loss of Americans in Benghazi. So before you drop big words like nation-state, you'd best understand that such concepts are merely beheaded imperial regimes- Led by the mania that if we do not get involved a syrian domestic issue it will become a threat to american interests-- when getting involved creates more enemies, more threats, and more need to get involved next time.

So enlighten me as to how these desperate men outside of my control are our enemy? Then show me who in the conflict will best serve my interests so I know who to support. Seems just just want to play imperialist.
I find it ironic that you justify the invasion of another country to establish order, yet claim this nation state security platitude. Please. It's survival of the fittest. At least be honest about it.Just admit you see them as weak and wish to take them down. Save me from this chemical weapons garbage/terrorist garbage-- been there, heard that, not the case.

[jimnyc]

I think there's little doubt amongst most that Syria possessed such weapons in the past and possesses, at the very minimum now, chemical weapons. The question is whether or not they would use them or perhaps if a terror organization could get their hands on them. I'm not saying that the government would definitely use them on their own people, but a dictator about to lose power, and is confident could maybe meet death, would have nothing to lose by using the weapons. Also, should the rebels finally overthrow the government, does that perhaps make it easier for potential terrorists to get their hands on such weapons. I don't know, but I do think the possibility of both will get easier and easier as the "war" goes on in Syria and the military and government gets more drawn out. My concern, is that quite frankly, I don't see it as a good situation for either the Syrian government, or the rebels, to have control of chemical weapons and perhaps much worse.

Then it brings in the next question, which would be, is anyone "responsible" for checking on these weapons and ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands. I think they've been in the wrong hands for a long, long time now. Helping either side in the conflict doesn't really lessen the danger of such weapons getting used or falling into the wrong hands. Does the USA get involved? At this point I don't think so. The world wants us out and the Muslims definitely want us out. While I think it would be a tragedy if civilians were met with chemical weapons, the world and Muslims have made it clear that it is not our ball game to help prevent any such tragedy. I'm afraid this is one that we'll have to monitor and let play out on it's own, let the people do what they have to do and let the government do what they feel is best. The best we can do is pray for the best.

Now, should down the line there be irrefutable proof of such weapons walking, and doing so into terrorist hands, and leaving the country, than I feel the useless UN, and larger countries would have a duty to ensure they aren't used outside of Syria. I'm not saying by an invasion, but rock solid intel and whatever is necessary to track them down and secure them - preferably without US troops, but no issue with US intel being involved.

[jimnyc]

Though derided by Democrats who love living in denial, a rather high General who served Saddam Hussein gave us the truth when he stated with no bias that the Saddam WMD was taken to Syria ahead of the Bush invasion.

George Bush was a liar. Saddam's generals were liars. All of the intel agencies across the world were liars. Saddam himself and his threats were lies. Not finding weapons, other than the weapons that are discounted, which were WMD's, and having "intel" of them going into Syria, is all lies.

[Robert A Whit]

George Bush was a liar. Saddam's generals were liars. All of the intel agencies across the world were liars. Saddam himself and his threats were lies. Not finding weapons, other than the weapons that are discounted, which were WMD's, and having "intel" of them going into Syria, is all lies.

Right into my wheel house.

George Bush did not lie. Bush actually was told of WMD not only by Democrats who used that reason to pass a law, signed by Clinton to get rid of Saddam Hussein. All we heard from Democrats as Bush massed troops was enormous sighs of relief and cries that NOW justice would be done. Democrats were for the war. It was only after no WMD was found that they got chicken shit over it. They lied.

If you have not yet read Gen. Tommy Franks book, do so. He explains that Mubarak of Egypt met with him and promised him that Saddam does have WMD at that time. King Hussein of Jordan also told him that Saddam was loaded to the gunnels with WMD.

Both warned Franks to have his men wear protective gear. Franks if you recall did that and his men went to combat with that hot protective gear.

General Franks would not do that but for the warnings.

Gen Franks also knew of what the CIA said.

Morrill I think his name is, the guy now in charge of the CIA, once Petraeus quit, stated when Obama wanted confirmation that Osama Bin Laden was in that house, that he was 60 percent sure Osama was there. That he was more positive by far that Saddam had WMD than positive Osama was there.

Turns out Saddam was there.

We can't fall into the democrats trap that Bush lied. Bush simply went to war with the intelligence offered to him.

The CIA was so persuaded that even Gen. Powell accepted it that Saddam had the WMD.

Notice nobody calls Gen. Powell a liar though. Not even the scurvy infested Democrats.

Finally, did you read the Iraqi Generals book where he offered details of how Saddam snuck the WMD to Syria?

I prefer such high ranking dudes to politicans for explaing such things.

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-w...da-says/26514/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

For that to work, and for Nation States - such as the US, for example - to trust in Syrian authorities and their military, there would have to be very good reason to suppose that each can establish, and maintain, good order in Syria.

So, state your grounds for confidence in such a status quo, Logroller.

Do you see stability in Syria, when others do not ? Do you see certainty that the Syrian regime will prevail ? On what basis ?

One such basis, I grant you, may be the deployment of WMD's by an increasingly beleaguered, and desperate, dictatorship .. willing to commit mass murder to maintain power.

Logroller, please, bring your Left-wing thought processes to bear, and explain to us why that may be a good and fully tolerable outcome.

There is a better alternative .. confiscation of those WMD's. The best likelihood for their non-use is brought to bear, and they're KNOWINGLY kept out of terrorists' hands. Now, do you really not think that is better ?

OR, is it preferable to just 'hope against hope' that terrorists don't get them ... leaving that chore to others, others whose own fight for survival might not make them the best custodians of such weapons ?

Logroller, enlighten us, please, as to why America's best interests are served by the whims of desperate men, people outside of your control ...

You are correct in that confiscation is the better path to follow. We know that the ME is heading towards a great unifiction. And should those wmds disappear from view it will be because terrorist groups got their murdering hands on some of them. After that who could trace the use of a few of them on our cities should that happen? Who could we find to attack? Its too damn late after a million people are dead. There are muslim terrorists groups that would happily use them on us or Israel! Obama seems to be indifferent about it but really thats because he wants those wmds to stay over here in muslim hands for later use IMHO.-Tyr

[Drummond]

To answer your question. No I don't think America's interst are best served by Syrian rebels, nor served by them at all. Never said otherwise. In this case I'd rather not defend something I do not believe-- some here might misinterpret my doing so as supporting rebels and terrorists. This is not the case. I'm defending what I believe is America's best interests. As an American, that is my right and my duty.

The statement I've 'bolded' above sounds encouraging. I would add that America's interests are to a degree interwoven with the interests of other Western powers, since we're supposed to have certain Western attitudes in common, e.g a love of freedom and democracy, and America is a world leader. But nonetheless .. let's keep your focus in mind .. shall we ?

As for the status quo, lets just look at what role America has played in the Syrian civil war.

If assad's regime is as endangered of succumbing to terrorists as you claim, why wouldn't we assist Assad? For we have not supported Assad; we have approached the UN to condemn Assad-- which has the defacto effect of supporting the rebels, those people you claim are terrorists.

Well ... more precisely, it's your Leftie-led Government that's taken such a position. Leftie sensibilities are in play, and are represented at the UN.

This said, Assad has proven himself to be a brutal ruler. Tell me, what Western power could be run in such a way that the numbers of civilian deaths seen in Syria would be at all tolerable within any of them ?

Could you even conceive of such a thing happening in the real world ?

So there is indeed reason for Assad to receive opposition !!

As for the rebels, have I really said that they're all terrorists ? What I think is that terrorists have become involved .. they may well be (and I think they are) helping to drive things along so that if any power vacuum arises, they're in a prime position to fill that vacuum. And since they'll have their 'people' on the ground, playing their part, they may well be able to get their hands on some WMD's.

Do you think that this would be a 'happy' status quo, Logroller ?

So who is the enemy-- every party to the conflict ?

Nobody involved will emerge with 'saintly' motives or behaviours. Each side is certainly culpable in its own way for the death and destruction that's happening. But, tell me, how does it serve anyone's interests in the West for instability to persist in the region, most especially with WMD's in the mix ??

acting under that belief we will only create a greater power vacuum. Been there, done that. not gonna buy that this time. I liked Bush's you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists speech way better than your's anyways, loved his simplicity. It was still total bullshit, but I bought it. Now you try the same tired support, terrorists WMDs Baathists. Sorry Drummond, lightning doesn't strike twice; you'll need to manufacture a new and improved justification for foreign invasion. "Our best interest" isn't quite enough for me, nor a majority of the American people.

Summarising .. you think it's best to stay on the sidelines indefinitely ?? AND WHAT IF TERRORISTS DO GET WMD'S AS A RESULT ??

This position - obviously ? - is totally incompatible with ...

I'm defending what I believe is America's best interests. As an American, that is my right and my duty.

... because you're proposing no such thing. Taking a chance on terrorists getting WMD's is the OPPOSITE of this.

In Iraq, there was an ongoing issue of Saddam refusing to satisfy UN Resolution 1441. Had Bush not acted, had that whole issue been allowed to slide, every tinpot dictator out there would've got the message that they can stockpile WMD's to their heart's content. Wait 10 or 20 years, and substantial areas on this planet would be highly unstable powder kegs .. with who knows how many terrorists doing dodgy deals to get their hands on some !! So don't kid yourself, Logroller, the 2003 Iraq invasion HAD to happen.

But .. your message is, DON'T learn from history ? LET terrorists have their chance at grabbing WMD's ??!?

American interests do count for something - for example, keeping Americans alive !! Ditto for other Western nations, holding dear to positions and values terrorist scum hate us for. I ask: WHY EMPOWER ANY OF THOSE TERRORISTS, WHEN IT'S POSSIBLE TO ACT TO PREVENT THIS ?

[logroller]

The statement I've 'bolded' above sounds encouraging. I would add that America's interests are to a degree interwoven with the interests of other Western powers, since we're supposed to have certain Western attitudes in common, e.g a love of freedom and democracy, and America is a world leader. But nonetheless .. let's keep your focus in mind .. shall we ?




Well ... more precisely, it's your Leftie-led Government that's taken such a position. Leftie sensibilities are in play, and are represented at the UN.

This said, Assad has proven himself to be a brutal ruler. Tell me, what Western power could be run in such a way that the numbers of civilian deaths seen in Syria would be at all tolerable within any of them ?

Could you even conceive of such a thing happening in the real world ?

So there is indeed reason for Assad to receive opposition !!

As for the rebels, have I really said that they're all terrorists ? What I think is that terrorists have become involved .. they may well be (and I think they are) helping to drive things along so that if any power vacuum arises, they're in a prime position to fill that vacuum. And since they'll have their 'people' on the ground, playing their part, they may well be able to get their hands on some WMD's.

Do you think that this would be a 'happy' status quo, Logroller ?


Nobody involved will emerge with 'saintly' motives or behaviours. Each side is certainly culpable in its own way for the death and destruction that's happening. But, tell me, how does it serve anyone's interests in the West for instability to persist in the region, most especially with WMD's in the mix ??



Summarising .. you think it's best to stay on the sidelines indefinitely ?? AND WHAT IF TERRORISTS DO GET WMD'S AS A RESULT ??

This position - obviously ? - is totally incompatible with ...


... because you're proposing no such thing. Taking a chance on terrorists getting WMD's is the OPPOSITE of this.

In Iraq, there was an ongoing issue of Saddam refusing to satisfy UN Resolution 1441. Had Bush not acted, had that whole issue been allowed to slide, every tinpot dictator out there would've got the message that they can stockpile WMD's to their heart's content. Wait 10 or 20 years, and substantial areas on this planet would be highly unstable powder kegs .. with who knows how many terrorists doing dodgy deals to get their hands on some !! So don't kid yourself, Logroller, the 2003 Iraq invasion HAD to happen.

But .. your message is, DON'T learn from history ? LET terrorists have their chance at grabbing WMD's ??!?

American interests do count for something - for example, keeping Americans alive !! Ditto for other Western nations, holding dear to positions and values terrorist scum hate us for. I ask: WHY EMPOWER ANY OF THOSE TERRORISTS, WHEN IT'S POSSIBLE TO ACT TO PREVENT THIS ?

Your summary is wrong. I never said nor implied anything was indefinite. but as long as were in the subject of definite things, you're basing the decision on an 'if' clause. 'If' is not definite. Its speculative. what if they do not get WMDs... War not justified? Pretty convincing Eh? I bet I can find a picture of terrorist not having a WMD '!

Imagine if I based the invasion of your house on "if you have unregistered weapons...", you'd be cool with that?
You'd probably just move them to your buddy's house. Better raze your town and the next one. Get your buddy too.
So far as taking chances; we take a real and proven risk every time we get in a car. Cars kill more people than terrorist attacks from accidents alone. Plus-- CArs and trucks introduce particulate matter that causes asthma, which millions suffer from, causing the enlargement of heart muscles and premature death-- but pass a law about increased fleet fuel mileage, zero emission vehicles or electric car subsidies, let alone urban planning that reduces vehicle miles travelled, and every free-spirited man and woman wails about the perils of big govt and decreased liberty. That's a problem I can see and feel, it's real, not based on 'if'.

Learn from history? I have; that's why I'm saying its best we cool it on invading over 'ifs'.
If it weren't for the oil we so desperately depend on, we'd not even bother with these countries. We played up these dictators as friendly to our interests because it was a means to end; then it blew up in our face, repetitively. Now we have this war on terror that, like every war since wwII, isn't a real war anyhow. Congress funds it with no declaration of war. Funds it, btw, with borrowed money that never gets paid back. Theres no sacrifice we make, as America, to assure victory. Hell, I don't even know what victory is, do you? I guess we won the cold war, costing us trillions in debt and included our training al qaida to oppose a common enemy. Did the same in the Iran/Iraq war. Both have came back to bite us. We had all the proof of wmds and aggressive dictatorships we needed to invade Iraq in 1991, but didn't. If we'd have steamrolled into Baghdad then, we might not have had nearly as much animosity as we have now. You ever listened to Eisenhower's fair well speech, warning us of the perils of the military industrial complex? It's you that has not learned from history, not I.

So to summarize, You want war, have it declared by Congress and if that happens-- ill support it. But we'd better have a plan to achieve victory, not just borrow money, enrich war profiteers, make more enemies and, much to the chagrin of the American populace, further devolve the American image as champions for freedom and liberty into little more than warmongering imperialists under the cloak of prevention.