Did Saddam hide WMDs in Syria?

[Titanic]

Gabon theres a huge difference between some mustard gas and a uranium nuclear warhead and ICBM's with the capability to reach Europe. There were not the WMD's that they told us, all they found was some cheap stuff with no real significance, there was none of the big WMD's, the ones that would destroy cities and were used to drive fear into us so we submitted to allowing the invasion to go ahead.

Also how can you even compare the USA today to the UK in the 1930's? The whole world is a completely different place and the policies being persued aren't even similar. Add onto that the fact that the actions Chamberlain took actually helped us to win WWII, and if we followed your methods of just fighting straight away then the Nazi's would have crushed everyone in Europe.

[GabonX]

Gabon theres a huge difference between some mustard gas and a uranium nuclear warhead and ICBM's with the capability to reach Europe. There were not the WMD's that they told us, all they found was some cheap stuff with no real significance, there was none of the big WMD's, the ones that would destroy cities and were used to drive fear into us so we submitted to allowing the invasion to go ahead.

Mustard gas has been used to great affect on civilian populations. Saddam Hussein in particular was guilty of this.

Yes, the kinds of gas delivery systems which Saddam used can destroy cities. The affects may not be as quick and clean, but they cause much more pain and suffering.

Also how can you even compare the USA today to the UK in the 1930's? The whole world is a completely different place and the policies being persued aren't even similar. Add onto that the fact that the actions Chamberlain took actually helped us to win WWII, and if we followed your methods of just fighting straight away then the Nazi's would have crushed everyone in Europe.

Well, we elected a candidate who is pursuing the path of appeasement as opposed to a seasoned military veteran and public servant. This is certainly similar. In addition if you look at the circumstances of the time (depression) as well as the ambitions of Chamberlain (a largely social agenda which included compulsory medical inspection of the population) striking similarities between the UK in the 30's and the United States today become apparent. The biggest differences which I can recognize are the nature of warfare and the number of "Hitler's" who are pursuing a domestic policy of militarization.

This comment makes it clear that you do no understand the dynamics of the UK in the 1930s. Chamberlain's policies helped to win the war? No..

There was a period where German military strength was not greater than that of the UK or France. Most people who actually study the Third Reich and WW2 era agree that had the war began sooner, that it would have been less devastating. Had the European powers reacted to the German occupation of the Rhineland, millions of lives would have been saved. Instead they chose to delay the inevitable while a strong stance in the 30's could have quite feasibly averted WW2.

[Titanic]

Gabon theres a huge difference between some mustard gas and a uranium nuclear warhead and ICBM's with the capability to reach Europe. There were not the WMD's that they told us, all they found was some cheap stuff with no real significance, there was none of the big WMD's, the ones that would destroy cities and were used to drive fear into us so we submitted to allowing the invasion to go ahead.

Mustard gas has been used to great affect on civilian populations. Saddam Hussein in particular was guilty of this.

Yes, the kinds of gas delivery systems which Saddam used can destroy cities. The affects may not be as quick and clean, but they cause much more pain and suffering.

Also how can you even compare the USA today to the UK in the 1930's? The whole world is a completely different place and the policies being persued aren't even similar. Add onto that the fact that the actions Chamberlain took actually helped us to win WWII, and if we followed your methods of just fighting straight away then the Nazi's would have crushed everyone in Europe.

Well, we elected a candidate who is pursuing the path of appeasement as opposed to a seasoned military veteran and public servant. This is certainly similar. In addition if you look at the circumstances of the time (depression) as well as the ambitions of Chamberlain (a largely social agenda which included compulsory medical inspection of the population) striking similarities between the UK in the 30's and the United States today become apparent. The biggest differences which I can recognize are the nature of warfare and the number of "Hitler's" who are pursuing a domestic policy of militarization.

This comment makes it clear that you do no understand the dynamics of the UK in the 1930s. Chamberlain's policies helped to win the war? No..

There was a period where German military strength was not greater than that of the UK or France. Most people who actually study the Third Reich and WW2 era agree that had the war began sooner, that it would have been less devastating. Had the European powers reacted to the German occupation of the Rhineland, millions of lives would have been saved. Instead they chose to delay the inevitable while a strong stance in the 30's could have quite feasibly averted WW2.

Mustard gas may be deadly but it is no nuclear warhead. They are not even comparible, the nukes are thousands of times more powerful and deadly.

You can look for all the similarities you want, and you will certainly find some. I could compare the Vietnam War to Caesar's invasion of Gaul and find similarities. Like you said, warfare nowadays is different, the enemies are different, and as well as that, the whole world is different. Also, I think I have a pretty good idea of UK history considering I have studied it in the past. War with Hitler was inevitable, especially after the Spanish civil war, there was always going to be a huge conflict to settle the disputes. The allies didnt want war in the 30's because people could remember the huge human cost of WWI and feared a repeat of it. As it became obvious that Hitler wasnt going to need to be dealt with, Chamberlain did go after appeasement, but he also began to ramp up military finding by huge amount. If he decided to begin fighting the Nazis as soon as they militarised the Rhineland or expanded their borders then the Nazis would have walked all over the UK and France. The extra few years meant that the UK and France could build up their forces, invest heavily in heavy artillery and training and technology and fight the Nazis. The Nazis were ready by the time of the Spanish civil war, but the allies were barely ready by 1939, so they would not have stood a chance in 1936 or any other time in the 30's. That is why I believe Chamberlain helped us to win the war, because he gave us the time to build up and stand up against Germany rather then rushing into a war we weren't ready for.

[GabonX]

The critical element that you fail to address is that Germany was building up as well. They surpassed the British forces in the late 30's not before, and the occupation of the Rhineland occurred in 1936, the same year as the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War.

I think you give to much credit to Chamberlain and not enough to Churchill as Chamberlain largely stood in his way.

[Titanic]

The critical element that you fail to address is that Germany was building up as well. They surpassed the British forces in the late 30's not before, and the occupation of the Rhineland occurred in 1936, the same year as the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War.

I think you give to much credit to Chamberlain and not enough to Churchill as Chamberlain largely stood in his way.

Believe me I give Churchill great credit, he won us the war, I just believe Chamberlain did the right stuff in the build up to prepare us for the war. WWII only became inevitable from 1936, and as these graphs show Germany was around 11% compared to the UK's 3.5% in military spending as % of GDP in 1936. Britains doubling spending in 2 years, and even more if you look at figures for early 1939, which proves my point earlier that Chamberlains stalling of the war helped us a great deal once it actually started.

[jsholty4690]

Spending and having it are two different things. In 1936, Germany had no air force, they had no navy, their tank corps was a joke and their army was weak. Name me a conventional war were the winning power did not have air superiority.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure the families of the 12 million that died in the concentration camps would agree with you completely.

[Titanic]

Spending and having it are two different things. In 1936, Germany had no air force, they had no navy, their tank corps was a joke and their army was weak. Name me a conventional war were the winning power did not have air superiority.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure the families of the 12 million that died in the concentration camps would agree with you completely.

In 1936 Germany helped out Franco significantly so that he won the civil war. Ever seen Picasso's painting, Guernica? That was the German Air Force so don't give me the crap that they had nothing in 1936. Do some real research then come debate with me.

[6.57]

Your clutching on strings that arn't even there.

You tit.

[Titanic]

Your clutching on strings that arn't even there.

You tit.

Instead of attempting to insult me, attempt to prove me wrong.

[jsholty4690]

Spending and having it are two different things. In 1936, Germany had no air force, they had no navy, their tank corps was a joke and their army was weak. Name me a conventional war were the winning power did not have air superiority.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure the families of the 12 million that died in the concentration camps would agree with you completely.

In 1936 Germany helped out Franco significantly so that he won the civil war. Ever seen Picasso's painting, Guernica? That was the German Air Force so don't give me the crap that they had nothing in 1936. Do some real research then come debate with me.

Did Poland have an air force? Did Greece have an air force? Did Belgium have an air force? If you don't know where I'm going, they all did have air forces, but they didn't stand a chance against Germany's. Germany may have had an air force in 1936, but it wouldn't have stood up against a modern army. The reason why their military did so well in the Spanish Civil War was because both sides weren't using modern weapons.

[6.57]

Your clutching on strings that arn't even there.

You tit.

Instead of attempting to insult me, attempt to prove me wrong.

How could I possibly insult your intelligence?

[Titanic]

Spending and having it are two different things. In 1936, Germany had no air force, they had no navy, their tank corps was a joke and their army was weak. Name me a conventional war were the winning power did not have air superiority.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure the families of the 12 million that died in the concentration camps would agree with you completely.

In 1936 Germany helped out Franco significantly so that he won the civil war. Ever seen Picasso's painting, Guernica? That was the German Air Force so don't give me the crap that they had nothing in 1936. Do some real research then come debate with me.

Did Poland have an air force? Did Greece have an air force? Did Belgium have an air force? If you don't know where I'm going, they all did have air forces, but they didn't stand a chance against Germany's. Germany may have had an air force in 1936, but it wouldn't have stood up against a modern army. The reason why their military did so well in the Spanish Civil War was because both sides weren't using modern weapons.

The Spanish civil war isnt my area of expertise but I'm fairly sure that both sides were using fairly modern weapons. Using any tanks or planes is those days was fairly modern in those days, its not like they were charging on horse back.

Trying to cling onto your thought process, your saying that the German air force was considerably better then those of Poland, Spain and Belgium, but not as good as "modern armies", presuming France and the UK? Not too sure about that, especially the second part. During the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe were extremely close to defeating the RAF and it was only bad strategic decisions by Hitler that led them to lose, so I don't see why in 1936 (before Britains large increase in military spending, but during Germany's expansion) the Luftwaffe "wouldn't have stood up against" the RAF.

[jsholty4690]

What I'm saying is in 1936, their air force couldn't stand up to France's and England's air forces. But, it is a historical fact that by 1940 Germany had the strongest air force in the world. If war had started in 1936 they wouldn't of had their superior aircraft, or the numbers to fend off both the British and the French.

By modern weapons in the Spanish Civil War, I meant Franco's forces were supplied by both the Italians and the Germans (75,000 Italian soldiers and 12,000 German soldiers, while Azana's forces were undersupplied (major supporters were Mexico and the USSR and they only sent money and materials and about 30,000 foreigners mostly Poles). The three years of fighting gave Germany more combat experienced soldiers, so when the war began in 1939 they didn't have to rely upon WWI vets who were in their 40s and 50s.

So, what I trying to get at is if war had been started in 1936, Germany wouldn't have had experienced soldiers, all the tanks they would have had were Panzer I's (crappy training tanks), a small air force, and no navy. It wouldn't have survived a war against two of the world's largest militaries.

[Titanic]

You make the point that Germany was weak (in reality definitely not as weak as you are trying to make out). The Treaty of Versailles said they could have an army of 100,000, naval force of 15,000, 6 battleships, 6 cruisers, 6 destroyers and 12 torpedo boats. These limits are fairly generous and led to the Nazis having a very well trained, extremely competent core within their army, and Hitler fairly quickly ignored these and began to build up the army.

The fact also remains that from 1920 up until 1936 Britain and France invested very little into their military so their air forces, navies and armies would have been almost 20 years out of date (essentially WWI standard), and hardly much more modern the the Germans. Germany began its boost in military investment in 1933, so by 1936 they would have been well under way into a military state, so if a war broke out the would have been ready to ramp up production for the war time effort. In 1936 Britain had only just begun its boost in military spending so if a war broke out there was no way they could alter the economy and focus it entirely on the war effort within a short period.

Even if the British and French had superior air forces and armies (which I still doubt), the Germans would have quickly overpowered them due to their production process and supply chain being more ready for the war and able to take the stresses that a war would produce, whilst the British and the French would be caught off guard and unable to create the changes necessary within the country to fight the war within time.

[Rustovitch]

Look up Scott Ritter.

Saddam had no WMD's.

[jsholty4690]

You make the point that Germany was weak (in reality definitely not as weak as you are trying to make out). The Treaty of Versailles said they could have an army of 100,000, naval force of 15,000, 6 battleships, 6 cruisers, 6 destroyers and 12 torpedo boats. These limits are fairly generous and led to the Nazis having a very well trained, extremely competent core within their army, and Hitler fairly quickly ignored these and began to build up the army.

The fact also remains that from 1920 up until 1936 Britain and France invested very little into their military so their air forces, navies and armies would have been almost 20 years out of date (essentially WWI standard), and hardly much more modern the the Germans. Germany began its boost in military investment in 1933, so by 1936 they would have been well under way into a military state, so if a war broke out the would have been ready to ramp up production for the war time effort. In 1936 Britain had only just begun its boost in military spending so if a war broke out there was no way they could alter the economy and focus it entirely on the war effort within a short period.

Even if the British and French had superior air forces and armies (which I still doubt), the Germans would have quickly overpowered them due to their production process and supply chain being more ready for the war and able to take the stresses that a war would produce, whilst the British and the French would be caught off guard and unable to create the changes necessary within the country to fight the war within time.

Your first point about the navy doesn't make much sense. They were allowed 18 real ships, how was that going to challenge the royal navy? They got their asses handed to them in WWI, if they went to war again in '36 with the same ships, the same thing would have happened. Two the reason for a lot of England's hardships during WWII, was because of Germany's U-boat corps and in 1936 they didn't have a U-boat corps.

The main reason why Germany did so well at the beginning of WWII was because of their tank corps and blitzkrieg. Germany didn't have the tanks nor the aircraft to use blitzkrieg as an effective strategy in 1936. So in your scenario of WWII starting in 1936, WWII wouldn't have become something we think of it today, but more like WWI.

These limits are fairly generous and led to the Nazis having a very well trained, extremely competent core within their army, and Hitler fairly quickly ignored these and began to build up the army.

That is the fault of Chamberlain and his French counter-parts. If they had regulated Germany more closely, WWII wouldn't have happened (even if it did it would have been at a more scaled down level). And finally I believe that you have little faith in what your grandfather's generation could do, and his French counter-parts because there is no better way to encourage people to do something, when there are barbarians at the gates

[notyou2]

Gabon, are you one of George W's daughters?

[Rustovitch]

You make the point that Germany was weak (in reality definitely not as weak as you are trying to make out). The Treaty of Versailles said they could have an army of 100,000,

Do you have any idea of how small an army of 100,000 men was by the standards of the day?

[GabonX]

Look up Scott Ritter.

Saddam had no WMD's.

Wrong

[Rustovitch]

Look up Scott Ritter.

Saddam had no WMD's.

Wrong

Yes the entire weapons inspection team, including CIA agents were wrong, and Saddam on the eve of war decided to pass his weapons to Syria and managed to do so via the tunnels of the mole men.

[Rustovitch]

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

Fail.

[pimpdave]

does syria have oil

does syria have oil

does syria have oil

does syria have oil

does syria have oil

does syria have oil

does syria have oil

does syria have oil

[Rustovitch]

does syria have oil

does syria have oil

does syria have oil

does syria have oil

does syria have oil

does syria have oil

does syria have oil

does syria have oil

Yes.
But it is not a major oil exporter.

[pimpdave]

Yes.
But it is not a major oil exporter.

Then there's no point in invading them before Iran.

[apey]

does syria have oil

No

What do they use as a lubricant in there cars??

ky jelly