ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Middle East Political & Social Issues

President Assad's Explanation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Updated on December 6, 2012

President Assad admits that Syria does have WMD gases, Sarin, Mustard and FX. However, he accuses the USA in creating hysteria by claiming that Syria has mixed and mounted the Sarin gas in artillery shells or onto aircraft as a pretext for entering the Syria conflict.

This would be, if true, a deja vu of the Iraqi WMD scam that was said in order to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Remember, there were no WMD weapons in Iraq as the US claimed as history now proves.

This is a very similar situation. There is no hard evidence that the Syrians have mixed or loaded their artillery\aircraft with such gas. The question becomes, what does the US\NATO do? It does provide an excuse to enter Syria to secure the gas stockpiles known to exist, which everyone has been worried about since the start. That in itself is an excuse enough to send special forces to the sites. Syria does not have to actually use them. Of course, any use of them opens the door wide open.

Even if the reports are not true, many feel it is way over due to put this mess to an end. Nobody wants the gas stockpiles to end up on the black market or in terrorist hands. Again, that is sufficient reason to enter into it.

Stopping the Syrians from using them is near impossible. You cannot bomb the sites because it will spread the gas, you have to capture them before launched, which requires very accurate information something. You can bomb the airfields to prevent aircraft from taking off and roads to prevent artillery guns from being moved. But, what if the guns are already in place and the gas filled shells are there also, awaiting for the order? One cannot bomb the artillery site. It only takes one gas filled shell. One and thousands die.

If the US enters after the use, that is a harrowing plan as well. Not all of the rebels are pro-Nato or America, there are al-Qaeda friendly units there willing to cause murder as part of a jihad. There will still be pro-Syrian forces to do the same, threatening to blow up the WMD sites if the US troops move in.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • swordsbane profile image

      William Grant 5 years ago from Wisconsin

      It's not QUITE like Iraq. Assad has admitted he's got them. In Iraq, there was no credible evidence that Hussein had WMDs, no evidence at all that he had a nuclear program going and no evidence of terrorist involvement. Basically we invaded Iraq because we could.

      In Syria, the simple fact that they have WMDs would be grounds (albeit flimsy) for special forces to try to find their stockpiles and destroy them. I doubt it would be sufficient justification for an Iraqi style invasion, especially because we're broke and have the war in Afghanistan to worry about, plus possibly expanding anti-terrorist operations into Africa.

      I think Obama would wait for credible evidence of the intent by Assad to actually use the WMDs. If Assad does use them, then all bets are off. If he does it once, we should expect him to do it again. Under those circumstances, the US WOULD take action. I'm certain of it, but I still don't think a full invasion would happen under those circumstances. We'd be worried about those weapons turning on us. We'd want to find them, eliminate them first before we put large numbers of boots on the ground.