WorldNet Daily debunks its own "Syria has the WMDs" article.

[a_random_joel]

Check it:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33216

Where are WMDs? Hidden in Syria

Posted: June 23, 2003
5:00 p.m. Eastern

<snip>

It is widely believed by the U.S. and Israeli intelligence communities that the evidence Saddam Hussein deployed weapons of mass destruction is hidden in Syria, among Damascus' own substantial arsenal of unconventional weapons.

<...>

According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Syria has the largest and most advanced chemical-warfare capability in the Middle East, including chemical warheads for Scud ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, chemical gravity bombs for delivery by aircraft, and chemical warheads for artillery shells. It has an estimated CW stockpile in the hundreds of tonscluding Sarin, VX, and mustard gas.

</snip>

Question 1 - Why would Syria take Saddam's weaons to hide, when it has the capability to produce hundreds of tons?

Question 2 - Why would Saddam hide them in Syria, when he could purchase plenty from them later? Of course part of this is already debunked by the why didn't Saddam take a WMD last buzzer shot, but that aside... if he thought he could hold out and get his revenge later, why take the risk of transporting them to Syria - they could be intercepted, destroyed, some horrible accident, etc. if he could get them from Syria anyway?

Question 3 - Why does Syria take the risk when they have their own stockpiles? If they too want Saddam to fight the good fight, wouldn't they just give him some of theirs if he made it? Wouldn't it be more profitable for them to sell them to him? They know the US is on their back porch now... why would they take such a risk?

Question 4 - Not that I advocate the invasion of Syria, but if WND is reporting on Syria's stockpiles... why haven't we invaded yet? They fit just about all the criteria for the Iraq invasion?

[shraby]

1. One that was missed...

why would Saddam give anyone his WMD's when they could turn around and use them against him?

[Fixated]

2. Well......

I'm not backing the Syria theory, but those questions aren't hard to answer:

1: The intent was to assist an ally, not to build up their own arsenal

2: Saddam IS a known risk-taker - if he DID have WMD, he'd probably want to save them at all costs

3: That is the best question here. The Syrian government isn't exactly "good," but do they dislike America enough to risk it? I'd doubt it. It's possible that lower level military personnel did the hiding, I suppose, but I doubt it.

4: Our forces are stretched too thin. If we ever did get out of Iraq, I'm sure we'd go into either Syria or Iran. Heaven help us...

[a_random_joel]

3. Counter

1. Has nothing to do with their arsenal. They could have still "assisted an ally", which would have been less risky, les work, and more profitable to both sides.

2. A known risk taker that didn't go for the buzzer beater at the end? Come on...

3. You agree.

4. But still, it counters the logic of preemption.