From reading through several articles, it seems that NYTimes broke the story yesterday. The Iraqi government told the IAEA on Oct 10th that the explosives from Al Qaqaa have gone missing. The IAEA is the group of UN inspectors who were monitoring the explosives before the war, and haven't been allowed in since the war began. The US Govt found out on Oct 15th. It seems that the explosives were stolen some time since the war began, maybe during the beginning of the looting. But I haven't seen anything definite (can anyone find this?). The IAEA had warned the US several times about the importance of securing Al Qaqaa.
The explosives include HMX and RDX, though I haven't seen numbers on how much of each kind. Suffice to say, 350 tons is enough to blow up a lot of things.
So what's new? The US's own military inspectors told US military commanders that radioactive material kept at an Iraqi test site needed to be guarded. The advice was ignored, and the site was looted.
The overwhelming majority of US&Coalition casualties are due to Rumsfeld's "let the Iraqis celebrate their freedom" attitude toward looting. Military armament and munitions were stolen out of Iraqi armories and being openly hawked in the street markets for pennies on dollars within a few days after the fall of Baghdad.
More cynicly, it was the DubyaAdministration attitude of "the more destruction&chaos in Iraq, the more we can loot America to enrich our friends".
[ October 25, 2004, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I was going to post a topic on it. With a picture of the headlines posted on Yahoo. Under this one it said that Bush says he can keep America safe. I thought that was painfully ironic. But seriously, WHY IN THE HELL WERE THEY NOT PROTECTING THIS SITE?!!
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Hey aspectre, did you change your post a lot? It looks very different from what I read the first time around.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Wait a second...
quote: The overwhelming majority of US&Coalition casualties are due to Rumsfeld's "let the Iraqis celebrate their freedom" attitude toward looting. Military armament and munitions were stolen out of Iraqi armories and being openly hawked in the street markets for pennies on dollars within a few days after the fall of Baghdad.
More cynicly, it was the DubyaAdministration attitude of "the more destruction&chaos in Iraq, the more we can loot America to enrich our friends".
WHAT?!?! YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FREAKING KIDDING ME!? You mean to tell me they knew about this and DID NOTHING ABOUT IT?!
How the heck do they get these links?
[ October 25, 2004, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:The Iraqi letter to IAEA identified the vanished explosives as containing 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or "high melting point explosive," 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or "rapid detonation explosive," among other designations, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or "pentaerythritol tetranitrate."
quote:The senior administration official downplayed the importance of the missing explosives, describing them as dangerous material but "stuff you can buy anywhere." The official added that the administration did not see this necessarily as a "proliferation risk."
Posted by signal (Member # 6828) on :
lol, W W! Un-freakin-believable. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Did anyone NOT read the articles? They were under the control of the IAEA until they what?
They LEFT before the war in Iraq even began (Read the CNN article). So then they were under the control of WHO until the invasion began?
Were the weapons even THERE after we invaded?
So the US was unable to get to them and secure them in time after the Invasion began?
I dunno, I'll have to see other articles before I take the Liberal Media stance on this one.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Not the phrase "Liberal Media" again. *Groans*
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:The explosives -- considered powerful enough to demolish buildings or detonate nuclear warheads -- were under IAEA control until the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. IAEA workers left the country before the fighting began.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Exactly Dabbler. Exactly.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
If I did my calculations correctly (someone can check me here), RDX has a density of 1.806 g/cc which gives 142 tons of RDX a volume of 78.6 cubic meters.
That's like 3 meters by 3 meters by 8.7 meters of pure RDX powder.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
So you're going to brush it aside because it might not be the US's fault?
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote: They are thought to have been taken from the al-Qaqaa complex, 25km (16 miles south of Baghdad, at some point after 9 April 2003. . . It says the coalition forces were specifically told to keep the material secured.
Sounds like they're pretty sure it was after the invasion. Course, neither you nor I have read the actual report.
*Edit: typo
[ October 25, 2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: dabbler ]
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Didn't the IAEA leave Iraq because of the imminent invasion?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I haven't brushed anything aside, but I am surely not going to swallow a report like that which is missing alot of important details.
I don't think a rational person should.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I have no idea what kind of response you'd want, then. I made a topic on it. I found it astounding. But I haven't been ranting, and I've been doing a minor amount of finger pointing.
It's news. And it's worthy news.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
How about "NO" finger pointing until you have all the facts in order. I'm not pointing the finger of blame on anyone.
Only an idiot (like John Kerry) would try to affix blame to someone with a knee jerk reaction, without having all the facts. What happens if it was the Iraqi Government's fault that it wasn't protected?
Think Kerry will open his big mouth and say the same things about their government if that's the case as he has about Bush being responsible?
Kerry has tried to place blame "early" before and gotten caught wrong (flu vaccine). You'd think he'd have learned a lesson. Yesterday's speeches (or today's) show he hasn't.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Actually, I think I've done no finger pointing. I've just been quoting articles, for the most part. That way it's harder to get blamed for "misinterpreting" or misleading.
And I haven't brought up Kerry's response at all.
You are stirring up trouble.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Actually, I think I've done no finger pointing.
Ok.
quote: and I've been doing a minor amount of finger pointing.
Ok.
quote: And I haven't brought up Kerry's response at all.
Kerry's response is like the 3rd paragraph in the article you posted. In fact it's in about every article linked on Google as well.
All I'm saying is put the trigger happy fingers back in their fists until we know more.
John Kerry is the one with the problem at the moment if he's wrong. Bush, if he's right. Iraq if they were responsible.
So until we know, let's hold off placing blame.
EDIT: I'm not blasting you. I'm blasting the "jump to conclusions" about who's responsible.
[ October 25, 2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Sounds fine. Kerry's mentioned because he's made a statement. Bush hasn't made a statement (at least, not this morning). Kerry's probably going off of some summary. Bad for him if he's assuming things that are wrong.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote: Only an idiot (like John Kerry) would try to affix blame to someone with a knee jerk reaction, without having all the facts. What happens if it was the Iraqi Government's fault that it wasn't protected?
Do you really think it's alright to call someone who is clearly not an idiot an idiot?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lets see, that's how many semis of explosives?
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
here's a handy page of explosives information. I don't really know much about the energy calculations, though. Play with them if you'd like.
The HMX comes out to 102.5 cubic meters. That's about 3 meters by 3 meters by 11.3 meters. Or 5 by 5 by 4.
[ October 25, 2004, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: dabbler ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
From a quick scan of dabbler's figures on size, it doesn't sound like more than two semis worth in volume.
No idea how many tons a semi can haul, though.
Dagonee
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
From a random "manual for environmental calculation of international freight transport" it seems that the usual is around 40 tons.
Which would make for around 9 freight trucks of explosives. But more likely is that they jam-packed what they could, so fewer than that. Are semi-trucks common in Iraq? I have no clue.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So this stuff is denser than a lot of stuff shipped in trucks.
Although there may be lots of packing around individual portions of the explosives that would add bulk. Are yor figures for the raw, unpackaged material?
Dagonee
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Yeah, raw unpackaged stuff. Just chemical equation number crunching. Someone should check to agree with my numbers.
I was curious, because things like "350 metric tons" doesn't really mean anything in the average person's visual consciousness. But ballpark figures for volume are nice.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Water's 1 gram/cc and aluminum is 2.7 g/cc
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
So.... we spent $120+ billion, over 1000 American lives, and ruined out relationships abroad to HELP the terrorists get more weaponry?
That certainly wasn't the deal we bought into.... (Not that I've ever bought into it )
[ October 25, 2004, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: That certainly wasn't the deal we bought into.... (Not that I've ever bought into it )
That's good, because that was never the deal offered or aimed for. Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
This isn't the first time the IAEA has left sensitive stuff lying around for our enemies to find. Remember that is how North Korea got the bomb. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
No, see you're wrong. According to Mr. Kerry (and the Media "spin") it's Bush's fault that the IAEA left the stuff unattended before the invasion. So if the stuff was taken during the first weeks of the invasion, it's all Bush's fault.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Yup, you can't really blame the IAEA for us invading Iraq against their wishes, preventing them from doing their job, and failing to protect the sites ourselves. We were warned of that danger before the war and we invaded anyway.
[ October 25, 2004, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
You forgot to blame Bush Xapo.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, I think that goes without saying... plus, you said it already!
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Actually, the Bush administration says it's the Iraqi government's problem now.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Well somebody had to say it.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Actually, the Bush administration says it's the Iraqi government's problem now.
LIES! All lies! Bush knew all along they were missing. In fact, I think he sold them to Saudi Royal Family since they're such close friends and all ya'know.
[ October 25, 2004, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I liked this Timeline that was published in the Boston news.
They have a huge window they could have disappeared during. Why are they bringing this up to try to pin on Bush at this time? (rhetorical question).
Obviously they could have been moved long before our victory over Husseim's regieme.
Farmgirl
[ October 25, 2004, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: WHAT?!?! YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FREAKING KIDDING ME!? You mean to tell me they knew about this and DID NOTHING ABOUT IT?
You know, that reminds me of the Afghanistan invasion.
Jonny
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
You're preaching to the choir Farmgirl. Thanks for the link though. Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
It seems most appropriate that the materials were moved during the open window between the inspectors leaving and the start of the war.
It doesn't take that long to load trucks and send them off. They couldn't have done it during the invasion and it would have been very, very risky to do it afterwards.
There's nothing like a surprise attack with plenty of forewarning...
But if these items were gone, I wonder what else has gone too?
Anyone feel like wrestling with this tarbaby?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: But if these items were gone, I wonder what else has gone too?
For the last time. There were no WMD's. Bush Lied (even though he didn't). He mislead everyone on purpose....blah, blah, blah...
[ October 25, 2004, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Or he waited around long enough after the inspectors left to give Saddam a chance to remove them.
This is a double-edged sword. And I don't believe it is done cutting.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Or he waited around long enough after the inspectors left to give Saddam a chance to remove them.
No, no, no. Kerry speaks the truth! We "rushed" to war. We should have waited. 10 years of sporadic inspections was not enough time to figure out he didn't have them. I mean, just because he had "used" them before, doesn't mean he actually had them then. We all know he used them, but didn't actually have them...in fact I think he used them all so they were all gone.
Pffft...waited too long...we rushed to war after 10 years of waiting.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
I think we saw someone's thought process just crinkle into a little ball of tin foil there...
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Sorry FG, boston.com is owned by the Boston Globe, which is in turn owned by the New York Times! How do we KNOW there was a gap so large??
I'm going to wait for more confirmation before I take the Liberal Media stance on this!
-Bok
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Exactly. I fully expect Kerry to complain to the FCC that the article you presented was wrong and needs to be censored. We all know that Kerry said yesterday (or was it today) that Bush was responsible for those weapons disappearing and we know he only regurgitates the true news. So we know that article is false.
Kerry is of course correct regardless of the facts. Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Farmgirl, Chad,
Do you just lie because you have nothing better to do? Or because otherwise you really can't make a winning argument?
From the Boston.Com timeline:
quote:March 2003: Nuclear agency inspectors visited Al-Qaqaa for the last time but did not examine the explosives because the seals were not broken. The inspectors then pulled out of the country.
March 2003: The U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq.
From Farmgirl:
quote:They have a huge window they could have disappeared during. Why are they bringing this up to try to pin on Bush at this time? (rhetorical question).
Obviously they could have been moved long before our victory over Husseim's regieme.
Yes, of course. They could have gone in and taken them any time from March 2003 until March 2003.
Don't forget, we're the country (at least, according to Donny Rumsfield) that "knew exactly" where all sorts of weapons of mass destruction were being kept. We're the country (we are, really) that can read the expiration sticker on a license plate from orbit. But, apparently, we can't see a small convoy of semi-tractor-trailers pulling out of a known high-explosive weapons depot laden down with enough explosives to knock down a dozen World Trade Centers.
BTW, Chad, love your
quote:Only an idiot (like John Kerry)
Can we call you to an asshole to your face, yet? Or should we wait?
--Steve
[edited to take the "g" out of "Chgad", out of respect]
[ October 25, 2004, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Can we call you to an asshole to your face, yet? Or should we wait?
I didn't say anything bad about anyone on this board. I'm talking about John Kerry.
Oh..I see how it is....threads that say "How STUPID is Bush" are fine, but say something negative about Messiah Kerry and WATCHOUT! personal vulgarities start a flinging.
Hey if you have nothing better to say, by all means call me names.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So your position is that it is okay to call people names?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Oh, I have plenty of other things to say.
But it's just so much fun to call you names.
Especially when you've earned them.
I do admit, I have called Bush an idiot numerous times before (though I'm holding back now, because I don't have enough time to dig up all those links). Please feel free to call Kerry an idiot. Only I would ask that you back it up with some facts--or at least some strong Republican innuendo.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Besides, I didn't actually call you an asshole. I asked for your permission to call you an asshole.
I'll take your response as a "no," then.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: So your position is that it is okay to call people names?
I don't know. I seem to remember people calling the President a "Liar".
Also if it's back up you seek, then you have it. Kerry claimed the Bush Administration knew about the Flu Vaccine shortage for months. He was wrong. FDA says so.
Kerry claimed that Bush was responsible for those weapons going "missing", but as the timeline shows, the IAEA left them unattended before the invasion even began. Not Bush's fault that THEY left them unattended.
Those two do enough damage.
I'm sick of the hipocracy of some. Grow up.
[ October 25, 2004, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Can we call you to an asshole to your face, yet? Or should we wait?
--Steve
[edited to take the "g" out of "Chgad", out of respect]
I'm at a loss of words for those two claims. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you just lie because you have nothing better to do? Or because otherwise you really can't make a winning argument?
Wow, did you forget your Valium, ssywak? Or is this just your standard little pissed-off routine?
First, I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that our forces reached Al Qaqaa the very same day the inspectors pulled out. But your little being offended act pretty much requires this. Otherwise a window does exist.
Second, the seals don't indicate the explosives weren't taken before that. Seals are not impossible to fake.
Relying solely on that timeline, there is a sizable window for the explosives to disappear before the U.S. controlled the site.
The irony is that there's actual evidence in the form of additional information you could use to contradict the conclusions drawn from the timeline. One of the linked articles says the Pentagon has acknowledged that the explosives disappeared after the invasion. Of course, there's no source, nor an indication we controlled the site before it disappeared. But it's on point.
But you thought it would be better to be an insulting instead. Yay you.
Chad, a lot of people don't only care about people at this site being insulted. "Somebody else did it too" is not a defense of your actions. Several people voting for Kerrey noted the inappropriateness of the "How STUPID is Bush" post.
Dagonee
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Since when do two (alleged, poorly-if-at-all supported) lies = 1 Idiot?
Doesn't bode well for your man in the White House, mein freund.
Can someone whith links point out how Chad is so completely wrong in this? I'm trying to get out of work by 6:15 pm so I can get home to my family in time to have dinner with them. If no one takes up the gauntlet, I'll come back later and post some good references.
I'll start with this, though it's not really sufficient to nail Bush, it'll get some of us going in the right direction:
quote:The Food and Drug Administration officials documented "deviations" from best practices at Chiron's Liverpool plant in the middle of last year, John Taylor, the FDA's associate commissioner for regulatory affairs, told the Wall Street Journal.
The regulator said that "systemic quality-control issues" led inspectors to conclude that Chiron wouldn't necessarily be able to discover problems, identify the root cause and take steps to prevent similar issues from arising again.
But no contamination was found in finished vaccine last year, which prompted FDA officials to begin working with the company to try to correct the problems, Taylor told the newspaper.
And now I go home to my family. Hopefully, they haven't changed the locks on me again.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Ok then, I apologize for calling Kerry "stupid". Although his current actions may speak otherwise, his education alone is a higher evidence.
So, I'm sorry for calling Kerry "stupid".
I'll not hold my breath that others apologize for their behavior.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Dag,
You said:
quote:But you thought it would be better to be an insulting instead. Yay you.
But I think you meant to say:
quote:But you thought it would be better to be an insulting ^%$^%#(*& instead. Yay you.
Glad to be of service Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Kerry also criticized the administration for the shortage of flu vaccine.
"We now know the administration knew ahead of time that there wasn't going to be enough vaccine," Kerry asserted as he campaigned in Ohio. The administration has denied it had any warning.
quote: "The administration, we've learned today, is playing fast and loose again with the facts and the truth to the American people because they pretended and they've acted surprised that we didn't have the vaccines," Kerry said at a nursing school. "Rather than tell the truth to the American people, they've acted surprised and pretended it just sort of happened on their watch."
quote: A Food and Drug Administration statement disputed the British account, saying "there had been no communication" between the U.S. and British governments on the matter until the British government acted earlier this week.
Doh!
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Steve, calling fellow forum members liar and asshole is not acceptable behavior.
You are too smart to be baited by the likes of Chgad.
Just ignore him. That's what I do.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Thank you Chad. I appreciate it.
And I apologize for thinking that you're an asshole. . . . . . And I apologize again. . . . And again. . . . . . . And once more.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist. I apologize for my language as well)
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I appreciate your response Steve.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Chad, you must admit, we have quite a crop of presidential candidates this year, eh?
Nader, who will sue and appeal to the Supreme Court to CHANGE the facts.
Badnarik, who doesn't want to hear about YOUR facts.
Kerry, who is always correct, regardless of the facts.
Bush, who is always correct, in spite of the facts.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But you thought it would be better to be an insulting ^%$^%#(*& instead. Yay you.
Actually, the "an" was supposed to be removed, not the " ^%$^%#(*&."
You see, if you take a moment to breathe before posting, you can often avoid making ^%$^%#(*&ish posts. But sometimes you don't get all the edits in correctly.
Dagonee
[ October 25, 2004, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Amen Bok, amen.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Nader, who will sue and appeal to the Supreme Court to CHANGE the facts.
Silly. Appellate courts have to accept the facts found by the lower court.
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I didn't say Nader was successful, did I, Dag?
(Psst, don't ruin a perfectly mediocre joke! I think I got Chad to snicker, which is high praise indeed, if true.)
-Bok
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Snickers? Where? I'm hungry! (I know...I didn't even get a snicker out of that one.)
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Just a small correction, HMX is not "high melting point explosive." It is an acronym for High Molecular weight RDX. It is the most powerful non-nuclear explosive used by any military.
<edited for dumb mistake>
[ October 25, 2004, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Chaeron ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
So...the weapons of mass destruction we said we knew Hussein had (even though we knew he didn't really have them), he didn't have.
And the weapons that we said we knew he had (and that he really did have), we ignored so that others could have them.
And somewhere in there we're supposed to infer competence? And we're supposed to give it the keys to our country for the next four years? If my kid was that inept, I wouldn't give him the keys to my car.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
By the time people figure out that Bush had nothing to do with the material disappearing the media will have forgotten about it, sort of like the Jenin "massacre."
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But, shouldn't common sense had told his admistration to secure these weapons RIGHT AT THE VERY BEGINNING of the war?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Second, the seals don't indicate the explosives weren't taken before that. Seals are not impossible to fake.
Okay, I've got a question. I know absolutely nothing about how facilities such as this one are sealed. What does that mean? Are the doors and windows welded shut? Is a hermetic dome lowered over the site? Is there just police tape strung up across the door? Maybe a blob of wax pressed into the lock with a signet ring? What?
Unless we know what it really means to say that the place was sealed, any speculations as to whether or not the seal could have been broken and a new one put into place without its being noticed is pretty baseless.
Steve, while I agree with your positions, damn! And accusing Farmgirl of lying? She's been here long enough, and has been an active enough forum member for you to know that it isn't in keeping with her character to pull stuff out of her ass. She can be mistaken, sure--any of us can. I think it's fairly likely that the explosives were taken from Iraq during the US's watch myself. But a liar? Seriously, how does it help your position to level an accusation like that at her?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:And somewhere in there we're supposed to infer competence? And we're supposed to give it the keys to our country for the next four years? If my kid was that inept, I wouldn't give him the keys to my car.
Well said. I'll be stealing that line, just so you know.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Let's see, before the war began, this place was a known and DOCUMENTED warehouse of high explosives.
And somehow our folks in charge of the war didn't keep an eye on this? No satellite imagery, no fly-overs, no unmanned drones, no nothing?
And someone didn't say, "Hey, let's drop a few bunkerbusters on this and make sure it doesn't fall into anyone's hands."
Or say, "Hey, the observers just up and left the place, let's drop a couple of sticks of paratroopers there to hold the place?"
Nope, we protected the oil fields instead.
Incompetence. Lack of foresight. Or it was planned.
I'm sorry, but while I think that the war in Iraq was pretty much an inevitability, if not a necessity, I have never seen a group of politicians and military leaders botch a job this completely and extensively.
Did they get their cues from the French efforts in Indochina? Did Arthur Andersen do the planning and troop count estimates?
Pathetic from stem to stern and it is purely on the quality of our individual soldiery that we haven't completely lost this whole ball of wax.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
People are forgetting that this building was only ONE of a huge complex.
Also, those with short memories might forget that when the war started we all thought they had WMD's. So you don't just drop paratroopers into hostile territory with the weaponry available now. It worked (but was still a massacre) in WWII but that was 50 years ago.
The onset of the invasion was to start from the outsides and push inwards.
But remember we didn't have a "vice" effect because we couldn't invade from the northern country and had to invade from the south.
For those "grasping at straws" in an effort to try and place blame on the President.
We knew the Germans had concentration camps. We didn't paratrooper soldiers into those areas to sit and "secure" them.
There's a reason why militarily.
Just my opinion.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Um, Chad, we did insert members of the 101st on the opening day of the war on oil fields in western Iraq.
They didn't receive ground support for quite some time.
Also, in WWII, we didn't drop paratroops deep in the heart of Germany for numerous reasons. First and foremost was after the disaster of Operation Market Garden. Secondly, German forces were still slugging it out and very dangerous up until the fall of Berlin. Iraq, certainly wasn't the same.
Basically, we just dropped the ball on this one. There's not much wiggle room. Our goals in the war were to push on to Baghdad, secure Basra and hold the oil fields. In their haste, they forgot this one, very important, site.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: In their haste, they forgot this one, very important, site.
It's not a "site" it's a complex of multiple buildings. EDIT: To give an idea we searched 32 Bunkers and 87 other buildings at that "site" when we arrived. And it appears the materials were missing by that time.
And the concentration camps weren't in the heart of Germany. They were in other countries like Poland, etc. There were no concentration camps in the "heart of Germany". The attitude towards Jews wouldn't allow them to be housed near cities, etc.
[ October 26, 2004, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Ok... So, let's make this clear... They protected oil fields instead of explosives and foreign civilians? Can you see why I am so disgusted and morally exausted by this administration? If it isn't Bush's fault, then who's fault is it? It seems like this war from the beginning has been some vaudeville show gone wrong only when things go wrong like this in a war it causes needless death and distrustion!
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
It's war Syn. It's not perfect. Point to me one war where everything went "perfect".
It doesn't exist.
First it's complaining that we didn't protect the museums, then we didn't protect the services, now it's that we didn't protect one site of several hundred that contained weapons. (yes, several hundred sites)
Then it's "we sent too many troops so now we're spread too thin" for the people holding the "draft is imminent if you elect Bush" people.
Or the other side that says we sent to few and needed to send more, but not more American troops but foreign, even though they won't send any more troops.
I give up. You want to blame Bush? Be my guest, but by that logic, Clinton is responsible for 9/11 because he let Bin Laden go because he "had no legal justification for taking him into US custody" when offered.
Is that the road of thinking we want to go down?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Syn, while I agree that protecting known ammo dumps and such should definitely have been a priority, I also think that it was essential to guard to oil fields as well. Don't you? Remember what Hussain did to the oil fields of Kuwait as he retreated from them? He set fire to them. Great, greasy smoke producing, environment destroying, resouce wasting fires that took ages to contain. There was every reason to believe that he would do this to his own oil fields rather than let them fall into enemy hands. This would have been a very bad thing for the environment and for the people of Iraq both.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
And throw into the equation the belief he had WMD's and would use them on our troops. Then factor in that we had a TON of troops north of Iraq waiting for a "green light" that never came that then had to be shipped/flown to the SOUTHERN border to invade.
The Goal was Bagdad and removing Hussein and his regime from Power, then going out and finding the WMD's by reinserting the inspectors and then rebuilding the country and placing it in the hands of the people to rule.
I'll post this again as I think it's important:
quote: Timeline on missing explosives in Iraq By Associated Press, 10/25/2004 16:24
ADVERTISEMENT
1991: The International Atomic Energy Agency placed a seal over storage bunkers holding conventional explosives known as HMX and RDX at the Al-Qaqaa facility south of Baghdad as part of U.N. sanctions that ordered the dismantlement of Iraq's nuclear program after the Gulf War. HMX is a ''dual use'' substance powerful enough to ignite the fissile material in an atomic bomb and set off a nuclear chain reaction.
January 2003: IAEA inspectors viewed the explosives at Al-Qaqaa for the last time. The inspectors took an inventory and again placed storage bunkers at Al-Qaqaa under agency seal.
February 2003: IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the United Nations that Iraq had declared that ''HMX previously under IAEA seal had been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives.'' This apparently did not include the HMX that remained under seal at Al-Qaqaa.
March 2003: Nuclear agency inspectors visited Al-Qaqaa for the last time but did not examine the explosives because the seals were not broken. The inspectors then pulled out of the country.
March 2003: The U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq.
After the invasion: The Pentagon said Monday that ''coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations. The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility, but found no indicators of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals.
Oct. 10, 2004: Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology told the nuclear agency that 377 tons of explosives had disappeared from the Al-Qaqaa facility. The Iraqis said the materials were stolen and looted because of a lack of security.
Oct. 15, 2004: The IAEA informed the U.S. mission in Vienna about the disappearance. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice was informed days later, and she informed President Bush, according to White House press secretary Scott McClellan.
Oct. 23-24, 2004: The Pentagon ordered the U.S. military command in Baghdad and the Iraq Survey Group to investigate the IAEA report, the Pentagon official said, adding it was not clear how or by whom the explosives were taken or whether any of the material had been used in insurgent attacks.
Oct. 25, 2004: ElBaradei reports the explosives' disappearance to the U.N. Security Council after The New York Times reports the cache is missing.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Bergen-Belsen (just north of Hanover) Neuengamme (outside Hamburg) Ravensbruck Sachsenhausen (outside Berlin) Dora-Mittelbau (outside Nordhausen) Flossenburg (outside Nuremberg)
And two of the major ones: Buchenwald (outside Weimar) Dachau (outside of Munich)
All in Germany.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Thanks Sopwith! Always good to have misinformation cleared up.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Again, none of those were in the cities. All were accessible to "paratroopers" in the same way Al Qaqaa was "outside of Baghdad".
You also intentionally left off all the concentration camps OUTSIDE of Germany.
Can you list them?
And you need to focus on the words "OUTSIDE". As I claimed, none of them were in the cities of those German towns you mentioned. Why? For the reasons I listed.
So basically, all your post did was say there were concentration camps in Germany OUTSIDE of their cities.
quote: They were in other countries like Poland, etc.
I was wrong with that statement. Some were. None of them had paratroopers drop in to "secure" them.
EDIT: I refer to this "excellent" map of concentration camps here.
[ October 26, 2004, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Chad:
quote: And the concentration camps weren't in the heart of Germany. They were in other countries like Poland, etc. There were no concentration camps in the "heart of Germany". The attitude towards Jews wouldn't allow them to be housed near cities, etc.
I've gotta work with what you say and do, rather than what you MEAN to say and do. Just like when we evaluate our government's efforts.
We have to look at what has been done more than what they MEANT to do.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Correct, that's why I was wrong with my statement about no concentration camps in Germany.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Also, you brought up the question of Concentration Camps in Germany. I felt that a list of the horrors elsewhere wouldn't contribute in this particular sense, since any reference to them in this discussion would be completely spurious (since they were in the region the Soviets were working in and completely out of the range of our delivery airplanes).
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Seriously Chad, where do you get this stuff? Do you know you're just making things up when you say them, or do you honestly believe them and then realize that you were wrong? Or all all of your gaffes like this just misspeakings? You seem like a decent guy, but I can't think of another poster here who has stated so many things that were clearly, unambiguously, factually wrong. What's up with that?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
By the way, I ask that with a complete lack of rancor or heat. I'm honestly puzzled by it, and would love to know what's going on in your mind when you present facts like that.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I admitted I was wrong with the comment on none in Germany. I wasn't thinking. But there most definately were concentration camps in France, Belgium, etc. as well. You did leave those out:
Gurs, Rivesaltes, Vittel, Compiegne, Breendonk, Mechelen, Vught, Westerbork.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
No, I just wasn't thinking Noemon. My bad.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Oh yeah, I know you admitted you were wrong; you generally do, and it's something that I definitely appreciate. What I'm wondering about is what's going on when you first relate the facts that you then later retract. Did you have a really bad civics teacher in high school that filled his students with misinformation or something? I can't tell you the number of things I've just accepted as true that were taught to me as a child, that I just never bothered to examine as an adult until I made reference to them and then thought "wait, that doesn't sound right? Is it?"
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
No, I was just focused on the camps being "removed" from the general populace (like why the ghetto's were removed from cities and their populations removed to outside of the cities.) and made the mistake of saying all of Germany instead of Germany's cities, etc.
I just had an idea in mind, and portrayed it rather poorly and wrongly.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I just had an idea in mind, and portrayed it rather poorly and wrongly.
Well, all of us do that more often than we'd like. I do appreciate your willingness to retract statments when they're shown to be false, by the way; that's not something that everyone is able to do.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Let me clear something up:
I don't WANT to blame Bush. I don't WANT to blame anyone. But the situation warrants some blame as to the claims that were made on this war from the outset.
Those claims, across the board, were:
Iraq was capable of producing WMDs and that they had at least some stocks of them, along with the wherewithal to use them.
This has yet to be proved.
That there was some link between Al Qaeda and Saddam's government.
Even the strongest evidence for this has proven to be remarkably shaky, if existent at all.
That we could secure a country and establish a democratic state for the benefit of all Iraqis.
This is noble, but we are having a hard time with the security aspect of this. Also, large numbers of Iraqis apparently feel they will have no say in the government (Al-Sadr brigades and other insurgents).
That we would be able to deny Iraqi resources and weaponry from the hands of terrorists.
This isn't proving close to true, and the recent release of this info in particular points to something much worse on the horizon.
That we would be able to handle all of these tasks, plus rebuilding, with our forces on hand and those of our coalition allies.
No. We simply have not been able to.
That we could afford this.
The checks are beginning to bounce.
That it was Mission:Accomplished.
It may be Mission:Impossible if we don't get ourselves right about this.
Like I said, I don't WANT to blame anyone. But the mission isn't going like they said it would. It has, however, gone as it more rationally should have been expected to go.
Our government pushed a far, far too optimistic evaluation of the war on us before it began. Had they said, this will be hard and it will take a long time, but it is for a greater good then we would be looking at this with different eyes.
But they didn't say that, did they?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And for what it's worth, Chad, I think Steve was being inappropriately hostile towards you in this thread; compared to previous efforts, I'm very impressed by your restraint. Thank you.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Here's a list of concentration camps, including the one in France:
Search for "Major Nazi Concentration Camps"
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Yeah, I blew up. I apologize.
I will need to find references regarding the true timeline of the explosives at Al Qaqaa (spelling, I know...) before I shoot off my mouth and accuse people of lying.
Personally, I believe that when Bush invaded Iraq, he pretty much took on the responsibility of policing Iraq. He knew of the stockpile of high-explosives, and (contrary to Chad's concern over the "hundreds" of building in the complex) I would bet that we had decent UN intel on just what building was sealed with those explosives inside. I will have to confirm Dag's statement that the explosives did not go missing until recently (certainly after that huge window of opportunity between March 2003 and March 2003), but it again points to a critical lack of concern for what is important. This is not a small cache of weapons. This is not a couple of old and empty shells with traces of expired Sarin and Mustard Gas. This is serious stuff; we knew where it was (probably RIGHT where it was), and (I have to think) chose to ignore the security risk.
Either we're competent or we're not. Unless, of course, we're only partly competent.
I have found these two conflicting essays on Clinton and Bin Laden, though. How to decide...
(Part of Steve's burnt offerings..)
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
They actually have the audio recording of him stating why he didn't take OBL when offered. The media may try to "spin" away the blame (Dan Rather did in his interview), but he actually said it, on tape.
Pretty hard to dispute that, although the media has tried.
quote:February 2002 business luncheon in New York, Clinton said this:
"Mr. Bin Laden used to live in Sudan ... And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
[ October 26, 2004, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
So does anybody know what's involved in sealing a weapons storage site like this one?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I have no idea, but I would guess it's a sticker put over the doors of the site.
Why?
Because I don't think they had any welders with them as members of the IAEA and their actions seem to be more bureaucratic, than physical.
I think their purpose is to find and report and check-up on than actually putting physical restraints on something to keep access from something.
But that's just a guess.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
It appears they are stickers. This article gives a bit of insight into the problems at another site 3 weeks after invasion. We secured the site, but couldn't verify if the contents were in tact.
There is friction between El Baradei and the US. The IAEA is the only organization that can "break" the seals to see what's inside per the "Non-Nuclear Proliferation Agreement"
quote: President Bush's senior advisers have accused the IAEA, under Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, of being hostile to U.S. objectives in Iraq. Civilian policy officials in the Pentagon, according to people with first-hand knowledge, initially proposed to make a complete inspection of Tuwaitha without the IAEA -- an exercise that apparently would have required U.S. government experts to break seals the agency's inspectors placed on safeguarded nuclear materials. The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which the United States is a signatory, gives the IAEA exclusive authority over those seals.
[ October 26, 2004, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Just to make sure I get off on the right foot.
I apologize to Chad for even implying he was an ***-**** (I'm so embarassed, I don't want to repeat it); it was wrong of me to do so.
But now I'm back:
quote:Did anyone NOT read the articles? They were under the control of the IAEA until they what?
They LEFT before the war in Iraq even began (Read the CNN article). So then they were under the control of WHO until the invasion began?
Except now it's been revealed by numerous reliable sources that the seals (flimsy as they were) were intact even after we had "Mission Accomplished." The explosives didn't go missing until we were in charge of Iraqi security.
In fact, American troops illegally broke open the IAEA seals in front of a (CBS?) news crew. Illegally, because only the IAEA was allowed to open the seals, and there were no IAEA members present at the time.
Which also puts the lie to your other statement that "the compound was so huge (which it was) that they didn't know which bunker hid the explosives." Because, obviously, they knew exactly where the explosives were after they broke the seal on camera!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The progress of this has been very interesting. Only a few days ago, following Bush administration denials and protests, the right wing was all over the media and the democrats for jumping too quickly to conclusions.
Given the CBS footage, I have to conclude that right wingers have once again been too quick to dismiss criticisms of the administration.
How much evidence must we a mass before Bush's supporter recognize that this adminstration can not be trusted.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Anybody have any links to the CBS footage? I haven't seen it yet.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: The Pentagon today suggested that up to two-thirds of the missing Iraqi high explosives that have stirred controversy in the current election campaign were actually destroyed by a U.S. Army unit last year, but a unit commander presented at a press conference to buttress that claim said he could not confirm that the ordnance he seized included the explosives in question.
Army Maj. Austin Pearson, who commanded an ordnance company in the 3rd Infantry Division during last year's invasion of Iraq, said his unit removed 250 tons of TNT, plastic explosives, detonation cords and white-phosphorous rounds from the Qaqaa storage site 30 miles south of Baghdad on April 13, 2003. He said the munitions were later destroyed.
The International Atomic Energy Agency reported Monday that 377 tons of high explosives -- including compounds known as HMX and RDX -- were missing from the Qaqaa site. HMX can be used to trigger nuclear weapons.
Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita told the press conference that "plastic explosives" was a term commonly used for RDX, one of three types of high-powered explosives that were placed under seal at the Qaqaa site by the IAEA.
Di Rita said, "We believe that some of the things they [U.S. troops] were pulling out of there were RDX." But he acknowledged that this could not be confirmed, and he said further study was needed.
The suggestion that RDX was among the explosives destroyed by Pearson's unit also appeared to be at odds with an ABC News video, shot by an embedded reporter, that showed soldiers of the Army's 101st Airborne Division cutting a wire seal on a bunker and inspecting explosives stored inside on April 18, five days after Pearson said his unit removed munitions. Weapons experts said the wire seal shown on the video was placed there by the IAEA and that the explosives inside the bunker were of the kinds that have been reported missing.
"I did not see any IAEA seals at any of the locations we went into," Pearson said at the press conference. "I was not looking for that."
Di Rita sought to play down the significance of the missing explosives, noting that they amounted to less than "one-thousandth" of the 400,000 tons of Iraqi munitions of all types that the Pentagon says have been seized by U.S. forces since the invasion.
The missing explosives are believed to have been removed last year sometime between March 15 -- the last time U.N. inspectors visited the Qaqaa site -- and May 8, when a U.S. weapons-hunting unit began a thorough search of the vast compound and failed to find any explosives that had been quarantined by the IAEA.
The U.S.-backed Iraqi interim government has said the explosives disappeared after U.S. forces toppled the government of Saddam Hussein on April 9, 2003. The government has attributed the loss to looting amid lax security. The Bush administration has suggested that the munitions were removed by the Hussein regime before the Americans took over.
Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry has seized on the issue to buttress his charges that Bush mismanaged the war, failing to ensure that depots of dangerous weapons and ammunition were secured and not dispatching sufficient troops and equipment to accomplish that task.
In a statement issued by the Kerry campaign today, retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark said the Pentagon briefing raised more questions than it answered and only added to confusion over "conflicting explanations for why hundreds of tons of explosives, munitions and weapons were not properly secured in Iraq."
He said, "President Bush needs to address this issue and level with the American people and our troops about why protecting these dangerous materials was not a high priority. It is shameful that George Bush remains silent, letting our troops take the blame for his failed leadership."
In television interviews last night and this morning, David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, confirmed that, based on a videotape aired by ABC News last night, the high explosives were still inside a sealed bunker when U.S. troops entered it on April 18, 2003. The video shows soldiers cutting a thin wire seal that Kay said was used by the IAEA, entering the bunker and looking at explosives in one of scores of barrels and crates.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
Nor have I. In fact, the latest things I've seen have been CBS and NBC reports from March of 2003 fomr their embedded reporters that indicated that there were no seals and all the stuff was already gone when our forces got there. These reports also indicate that the facility had indeed been struck by our air power before our boys on the ground got there too, in spite of what someone said back on page 1.
I've also seen reports stating that it was 3 tons, not 380.
Someone also wondered why we didn't have flyovers, satellite imagery, etc of this site leading up to the invasion. Well. . . the reports I've seen also say that we do have quite a bit of all that, and that there were convoys of Russian trucks at the site taking stuff out in the weeks prior to our invasion.
Granted, it's mostly blogs and "conservative sites" I'm going to, so it's gotta be taken with a grain of salt, but I believe the same of the "MSM" anymore eiher.
And I'm actually surpised that no one has mentioned yet that there are/were an estimated million tons of weapons, ordnance, and explosives in Iraq that have been secured and accounted for and that anywhere from 240,000 to 400,000 tons of that has already been destroyed and the rest is in process of being destroyed.
Assuming the reports that I've seen are true what we have is:
a) the stuff was taken before we got there b) it represents about 0.04% of the stuff that we have secured and are working on destroying. c) it was reported missing in March of 2003 when our troops got there, so bringing it up now is a complete non-issue, intended to inflame those disposed to believe that everything we do in Iraq is a mistake.
{Edit embarrassing typo)
[ October 29, 2004, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Magson ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I'm sure I must have taken more than my share of stupid pills this morning, but maybe someone here can clean this up for me.
1) Bush & Company claim that Iraq is home to Weapons of Mass Destruction (Chem/Bio/Nukular), and that we know where it all is, and that we have to go in and get it so "Saddam" (why do they keep referring to him on a "first name basis"? Is it to show disrespect? How shameful!) can't attack us with it or give it to terrorists.
2) Meanwhile, Georgie & friends apparently know that Saddam has OVER 400,000 TONS OF HIGH-EXPLOSIVES (including some of sufficient strength that they can be used to trigger nuclear fission).
We really, truly KNOW that he has these high-explosives. A pound of this stuff can tear a hole in a 747. A ton (or less, if properly placed) can topple a tall office building. We also really, truly KNOW exactly where he's got it hidden (no made up stories, like from Rumsfield & Powell).
So why didn't the Bush administration use this as a legitimate reason to invade--or, at least, as a supplemental reason? And why, if keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of terrorists (a STATED CLAIM for why we went to war) was so important, did we not try harder to keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists?
Something's missing here. Something just does not add up.
Is it me? Am I just stupid? (Don't answer that, Farmgirl or CStroman!)
What critical fact have I overlooked?
--Steve
[edited it to correct 400,000 pounds to 400,000 TONS!]
[ October 29, 2004, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:So why didn't the Bush administration use this as a legitimate reason to invade--or, at least, as a supplemental reason?
Every nation on earth -- and a lot of private actors -- have access to high-powered explosives. To invade a country in order to prevent it from (possibly) supplying such to terrorists would appear beyond ridiculous. If there were incontrovertible evidence that Saddam had supplied explosives to al Quaida and that those had been used in a large scale terror attack -- then perhaps. Anything less and Bush would have been laughed out of the Security Council.
[ October 29, 2004, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
That's the order the stories came out in. You should be able to access the video from the links at the top of each page, though I didn't, as I'd already seen them. They reporters were embedded with the 101st and the video shows the IAEA seal on the door.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Also, there were many IAEA seals on various barrels of items and weapons and doors in that complex. The ones shown in the video may be ones that were secured and accounted for. The ones that are missing may have been destroyed.
We don't know yet. That video is of ONE bunker.
Unfortunately we have our troops, and the IAEA who are not working together to sort this out.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Chad, as you know ( ) I am hardly a Bush supporter.
However, I hope that they really were destroyed, as that would be best for everyone....no soldiers killed by them, no civillians getiing hold of them, no bombings with the material.
I won't hold my breath for that to be the case, but whatever our politics we whould be hoping that Bush & Co either finds them or can prove they have been destroyed.
Kwea
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
From Chad's link:
quote: Asked whether he could say the destroyed munitions included any of the explosives previously monitored by the IAEA, Pearson said, "I don't know. I don't have that information."
"I did not see any IAEA seals at the locations that we went into. I was not looking for that," Pearson added....
'ALMOST CERTAINLY'
Chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said "some percentage" of the explosives monitored by the IAEA was "almost certainly removed from bunkers and destroyed by Major Pearson's unit." He did not explain how he came to that conclusion.
Interesting. Is the Pentagon grasping at straws or do they have additional information to back up their conclusion that they cannot reveal due to security reasons?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Based on my experience with the military (Navy, mainly with NAVFAC and base closure, civillian contractor), I'd guess they have some kind of record it was destroyed by someone (an email or something) but not the official records that would verify for sure.
"Almost certainly" is code for "I think so, but I know if I say 'definitely' and turn out to be wrong I'll be stationed in Antartica before the press conference is over."
Dagonee
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
We don't have the break-down of the 400,000 tons of "munitions." Don't forget this includes guns that have been passed down for a few generations as well as 'high powered explosives." On the other hand, we know the break-down of the missing IAEA-sealed package. And it was a darned lot of explosives that can blow up a great deal of things. I think it's all smoke and mirrors to compare the two as showing how the missing explosives 'aren't a big deal.'
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Dag, given that the press is eager to jump on any military mistake right now, I don't blame them for being extra cautious.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Regardless of the changing story of what happened to the ammunition...
If Hans Blix and the IAEA only sealed these weapons without marking them as "to be destroyed" or somehow marking them as weapons that Iraq must get rid of according to UN resolution -- then what exactly is the big deal?
IAEA said there were no weapons of mass destruction found, so I'm assuming these were considered "conventional" and allowed by UN law.
FG
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
They are conventional, but they are of a sort that is necessary to making modern nuclear weaponry (detonating a nuclear explosion as used in modern bombs requires a very large and very precise triggering explosion), which is why they were under seal.
That they can be used as such did not warrant they be destroyed under our agreement with Iraq, particularly as there are legitimate non-military uses (building demolition, for instance). However, they were kept under seal except as specifically released for such purposes because they are so powerful.
"Coincidentally", large amounts of the explosives being used in Iraq are of the sort one could make from the explosives in this cache. Not to mention that the army considered it important enough that they destroyed approximately 250 tons of less powerful explosives found in part of the complex, suggesting that this cache of the most powerful non-nuclear explosives known to man might perhaps have been good to keep, say, secure?
Second, just because Iraq the country could have them does not mean it is no big deal if Iraqi insurgents have them. Iraq the country could have all sorts of tank destroying and anti-troop weaponry that we would rather keep out of Iraqi insurgent hands, thank you very much. I would rather not expose our troops to the delicate touch of extremely high explosives.
I repeat, these explosives are very powerful, and very popular with terrorists and the insurgents in Iraq. They are not easy to make, and they are not easy to obtain. We let enough to make literally millions of bombs slip out from under us and we are brushing this over as no big deal because they weren't nukes?!
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
W! Un-freakin-believable. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)