Support NeoGAF

[Nerevar]

Really? Then how come the inspectors found new missiles in Iraq that exceeded the boundaries made by the UN just before the war started?

You mean the ones that exceeded the UN regulations by roughly 5 miles before they were loaded with the on-board guidance systems? You mean the ones that exceeded the allowed range less than 50% of the time in controlled tests? You mean the ones Iraq willingly destroyed before the war due to the UN weapons ban? You need a hell of a lot better evidence than the Al-Sammoud missiles if you want to try and convince anyone with even a modicum of intelligence that Hussein was rebuilding his WMD stockpile.

 

[Phoenix]

You mean the ones that exceeded the UN regulations by roughly 5 miles before they were loaded with the on-board guidance systems? You mean the ones that exceeded the allowed range less than 50% of the time in controlled tests? You mean the ones Iraq willingly destroyed before the war due to the UN weapons ban? You need a hell of a lot better evidence than the Al-Sammoud missiles if you want to try and convince anyone with even a modicum of intelligence that Hussein was rebuilding his WMD stockpile.

That and the fact that high explosives and missiles are not considered WMD.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

It is really incredible that pro-war junkies are able to hold their rationale despite incredibly mounting evidence about the fallacies and follies that resulted in the situation we are in now. I tell you that cognitive dissonance study was right on the money. These people are completely blind. If you supported the war initially fine, admit it say it hasn't worked out well and that mistakes were made. Don't try to act like everything is ok and gone to plan and you were 'right'. One thing has shown to be incredibly wrong and that is every single reason Bush and his cronies have given for going to war outside of 'well Sadam is a bad man and could have hurt somebody, somewhere, somehow', and even that is incredibly faulty.

JUST ADMIT IT! WE SCREWED UP! WE SCREWED UP BIG TIME!

Wow! What a post. The press is releasing information that's been known for over a year, it's in the last week before the election and it's bashing Bush. So now all of a sudden Bush supporters are pro war and blind? That's just messed up and I even posted earlier that this administration has done a lot wrong. We did rush into war. I'm in the military right now. I know it sucks over there. People are risking their lives fighting these terrorists overseas so we don't have another 911 here in the USA. No one wants war. It hasn't been perfect. I don't agree with every decision Bush makes, but at least he is doing something. It's real easy for people to look at the hind sight and point out the mistakes that have been made. It's a war people. They don't call it that for nothing. It seems like everyone is suprised that these people are fighting back. The Saddam loyalists and terrorists want you to think that. Kerry wants you to think that so he can win the election and get us out of there. If we do not succeed in Iraq it will be devastating for the security of our country. Let me just say one more thing. If Iraq was able to hide 350 tons (that's at least 12 eighteen wheeler loads) of HMX explosives that we knew where it was, why is it so hard for you to believe that they didn't do the same hing w/ WMD that intelligence showed they were pursuing?

 

[Seth C]

It is really incredible that pro-war junkies are able to hold their rationale despite incredibly mounting evidence about the fallacies and follies that resulted in the situation we are in now. I tell you that cognitive dissonance study was right on the money. These people are completely blind. If you supported the war initially fine, admit it say it hasn't worked out well and that mistakes were made. Don't try to act like everything is ok and gone to plan and you were 'right'. One thing has shown to be incredibly wrong and that is every single reason Bush and his cronies have given for going to war outside of 'well Sadam is a bad man and could have hurt somebody, somewhere, somehow', and even that is incredibly faulty.

JUST ADMIT IT! WE SCREWED UP! WE SCREWED UP BIG TIME!

Look, I'm for this war even if Iraq NEVER had plans for any "weapons of mass destruction." So, you're going to have a hard time getting me to admit we screwed up in going to war.

 

[Nerevar]

People are risking their lives fighting these terrorists overseas so we don't have another 911 here in the USA.

Then why are we fighting a war in Iraq? A country that produced not a single terrorist on 9/11. A country that had a declining military, a dictator with an eroding power base, no capacity to strike against the western world, and no weapons with which to accomplish that? The only "terrorists" you're fighting now are ones that were created when US soldiers rolled their tanks through their homeland.

No one wants war. It hasn't been perfect. I don't agree with every decision Bush makes, but at least he is doing something.

If no one wants war, why did Bush so blindingly rush into it in Iraq? Once again, this war is completely irrelevant to the war on terror - in fact, it is exactly what the terrorists want. Where was the diplomacy we were promised? If Bush had decided to attack Germany (a country where terrorists secretly met to plan 9/11), would that have been right? He would have been doing "something," and at least there you could at least draw some semi-credible connection to 9/11. But I would guess you would argue, quite correctly, it was a stupid and irresponsible decision. That's the way any reasonable person should feel about Iraq, just doing "something" is much worse than doing "the right thing."


I'm too lazy to argue the rest of your post. You probably won't even read or respond to this, because you're too busy chanting "four more years" to understand why anyone with even the slightest bit of insight into foreign policy thinks you're nothing more than a sheep following a blind shepherd.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

I'm too lazy to argue the rest of your post. You probably won't even read or respond to this, because you're too busy chanting "four more years" to understand why anyone with even the slightest bit of insight into foreign policy thinks you're nothing more than a sheep following a blind shepherd.

You know, I respect your opinion. I guess now I'm pro-war, blind, and a sheep following a blind sheppard. I can respect you feel that way, but I disagree.

Then why are we fighting a war in Iraq? A country that produced not a single terrorist on 9/11. A country that had a declining military, a dictator with an eroding power base, no capacity to strike against the western world, and no weapons with which to accomplish that? The only "terrorists" you're fighting now are ones that were created when US soldiers rolled their tanks through their homeland.

I haven't been able to look at the intelligence the President has. If Saddam wasn't an "imminent threat" why did we attack? It seems kind of rediculous to the think the President take us into war if he knew all you are saying is correct. Might I remind you that Kerry voted for us to go to war too.

If no one wants war, why did Bush so blindingly rush into it in Iraq? Once again, this war is completely irrelevant to the war on terror - in fact, it is exactly what the terrorists want. Where was the diplomacy we were promised? If Bush had decided to attack Germany (a country where terrorists secretly met to plan 9/11), would that have been right? He would have been doing "something," and at least there you could at least draw some semi-credible connection to 9/11. But I would guess you would argue, quite correctly, it was a stupid and irresponsible decision. That's the way any reasonable person should feel about Iraq, just doing "something" is much worse than doing "the right thing."

Obviously, Bush and Kerry both thought Iraq was an "Imminent threat" at the time. This war isn't irrelevant to terror. The intelligence showed that Saddam Hussein was intent on making cuclear weapons and rebuilt his chemical and biological buildings to look like civilian buildings. The supplies he bought had dual uses and could have been turned into WMD. Yes, we rushed into war, I agree. I also don't know what they know though. Once again, if Iraq was able to hide 350 tons (that's at least 12 eighteen wheeler loads) of HMX explosives that we knew the location of, why is it so hard for you to believe that they didn't do the same hing w/ WMD that intelligence showed they were pursuing?

 

[Keio]

Wow! What a post.

Wow. What a post.

It seems like everyone is suprised that these people are fighting back. The Saddam loyalists and terrorists want you to think that. Kerry wants you to think that so he can win the election and get us out of there. If we do not succeed in Iraq it will be devastating for the security of our country.

Umm. Bush wasn't surprised, didn't he mention that he wouldn't be happy "if he was occupied" What people probably failed to realize is that the insurgency wouldn't be just a few loyalists and terrorists but a genuine resistance that is gaining popularity, according to numerous security analysts.

But you are right about the cost of not succeeding in Iraq. And look what seems to be happening. Thanks Bush, for making the world a safer place...

Let me just say one more thing. If Iraq was able to hide 350 tons (that's at least 12 eighteen wheeler loads) of HMX explosives that we knew where it was, why is it so hard for you to believe that they didn't do the same hing w/ WMD that intelligence showed they were pursuing?

Cognitive dissonance? The 350 tonnes were right there in the open for people to steal and now it's been probably broken to small loads distributed to cells all over country plus perhaps sold to terrorists for use as detonators in small nuclear weapons. WMD (crude nuclear weapons) wouldn't be that easy to hide, and you couldn't break up chemical weapon production facilities. So no, they didn't just hide the WMD when Bush went looking.

edit, added this

It seems kind of rediculous to the think the President take us into war if he knew all you are saying is correct. Might I remind you that Kerry voted for us to go to war too.

You are right! It is ridiculous! I reckon the best course of action would be to vote the maker of such a ridiculous decision out of office. Kerry didn't vote for going to war, he just voted to give Bush the authority to make a decision (and Bush had given promises to "exhaust every option" - which he didn't do) - Kerry probably didn't expect such a ridiculous decision

 

[N Coward Parody]

If Saddam wasn't an "imminent threat" why did we attack? It seems kind of rediculous to the think the President take us into war if he knew all you are saying is correct.

Jesus Christ...



*Noel Coward Parody

 

[Funky Papa]

If Saddam wasn't an "imminent threat" why did we attack? It seems kind of rediculous to the think the President take us into war if he knew all you are saying is correct.

I guess now I'm pro-war, blind, and a sheep following a blind sheppard.

Man, no offense, but you are calling for it.

 

[Shinobi]

It's real easy for people to look at the hind sight and point out the mistakes that have been made.

:lol Hind sight's got dick all to do with it. I and many others were calling this bullshit almost two years ago, long before the first "shock and awe" salvo was thrown. The evidence was completely circumstantial, and there wasn't a single shred of proof that Iraq was doing anything that would warrant an invasion, be it building a stockpile of weapons, or having any official or unofficial links to the 9/11 attacks. To launch a fucking war, you need a hell of a lot more then circumstantial evidence.

And this idea that Saddam decided to destroy, ship or bury his WMD toys just prior to the invasion is a crock of shit anyway. Based on the way the administration built this guy up, can you honestly believe that he would tear his toys up or give 'em away instead of using them in the inevitable invasion and at least taking a few "yankee infidels" with him? The people who argue this "he destroyed the weapons" tangent have never been able to explain that away to my satisfaction, and I doubt you'll be the first.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

:lol Hind sight's got dick all to do with it. I and many others were calling this bullshit almost two years ago, long before the first "shock and awe" salvo was thrown. The evidence was completely circumstantial, and there wasn't a single shred of proof that Iraq was doing anything that would warrant an invasion, be it building a stockpile of weapons, or having any official or unofficial links to the 9/11 attacks. To launch a fucking war, you need a hell of a lot more then circumstantial evidence.

And this idea that Saddam decided to destroy, ship or bury his WMD toys just prior to the invasion is a crock of shit anyway. Based on the way the administration built this guy up, can you honestly believe that he would tear his toys up or give 'em away instead of using them in the inevitable invasion and at least taking a few "yankee infidels" with him? The people who argue this "he destroyed the weapons" tangent have never been able to explain that away to my satisfaction, and I doubt you'll be the first.

I agree that we rushed into war. I've said that repeatedly. I don't agree with everything Bush does, I'm just voting for him because I don't want Kerry in office. From the people I've talked to, they are voting for Kerry because they don't want Bush in office. I think it's messed up you can only pick from two people. Yes, I know other people are running, but I'm sure we can all agree that a vote for them is insignificant.
As far as Saddam moving the WMD if he did infact have them, which I hope he didn't. If he can quickly move over 350 tons of HMX without us knowing, why is it a crock to believe he could have done the same thing with WMD. And Keio, the argument that they broke up the HMX is bogus. That's 350 tons or at least 12 full 18 wheelers. How much harder would it have been to move Anthrax powder?

 

[Incognito]

As far as Saddam moving the WMD if he did infact have them, which I hope he didn't. If he can quickly move over 350 tons of HMX without us knowing, why is it a crock to believe he could have done the same thing with WMD. And Keio, the argument that they broke up the HMX is bogus. That's 350 tons or at least 12 full 18 wheelers. How much harder would it have been to move Anthrax powder?

HE DID NOT HAVE WMD'S. THAT"S A CONCLUSIVE FACT.

 

[Keio]

Where did you get the idea that Saddam "moved" the HMX? It was looted by terrorists/insurgents, most probably. How is the idea that it was moved in parts and not in one massive convoy bogus?

[cognitive dissonance activated]Oh, and, Saddam also moved Santa Claus and his reindeer to a secret base! But he didn't separate them, either! You can't prove that he didn't! He could have, because the HMX was stolen.[/cognitive dissonance]

 

[MadOdorMachine]

First of all, when the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998, not all of his WMDs were accounted for and Iraq had been left unchecked until 2002. They weren't cooperating and in fact delayed escorting the inspectors to certain sites, which could have given them time to move their weapons if they had any.

Second, this is a quote from the 911 commission: "They rebuilt key portions of their chemical production infrastructure for industrial
and commercial use, as well as its missile production facilities. It had attempted to purchase numerous dual-use items for, or under the guise of, legitimate civilian use. This equipment—in principle subject to UN scrutiny—could also be diverted for WMD purposes."

Third, the article in the NY Times said the HMX was already gone when we got there. If you believe Iraq wasn't harboring terrorists, which was argued earlier that they had no connection with, how could they have moved them if they didn't come into Iraq until after the initial segment of the war was over?

 

[MadOdorMachine]

Where did you get the idea that Saddam "moved" the HMX? It was looted by terrorists/insurgents, most probably. How is the idea that it was moved in parts and not in one massive convoy bogus?

[cognitive dissonance activated]Oh, and, Saddam also moved Santa Claus and his reindeer to a secret base! But he didn't separate them, either! You can't prove that he didn't! He could have, because the HMX was stolen.[/cognitive dissonance]

How is the idea that HMX was broken up and moved any more bogus than Anthrax being moved? Your talking about over 350 tons being moved in about a month, maybe two.

 

[Keio]

Read the article again.

The newspaper said they disappeared after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq last year. ... Al Qaqaa, a sprawling former military installation about 30 miles south of Baghdad, was placed under U.S. military control but repeatedly has been looted, raising troubling questions about whether the missing explosives have fallen into the hands of insurgents battling coalition forces.

A Kerry advisor sums it up in the AP story quite well.

"The Bush administration knew where this stockpile was, but took no action to secure the site. They were urgently and specifically informed that terrorists could be helping themselves to the most dangerous explosives bonanza in history, but nothing was done to prevent it from happening," he said.

"This material was monitored and controlled by U.N. inspectors before the invasion of Iraq. Thanks to the stunning incompetence of the Bush administration, we now have no idea where it is," Lockhart said.

edited to add this

How is the idea that HMX was broken up and moved any more bogus than Anthrax being moved?

Because there is no evidence of anthrax or production facilities for it existing in Iraq. Hence Santa Claus or any other non-falsifiable proposition you can invent can be as strong an argument as your anthrax.

But you could, quite easily, using cars/trucks/tractors/whatever transport the explosives away from Al Qaqaa to hundreds of hideouts in Iraq. Limitless supply of explosives to attack the occupying forces with, ta-dah.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

Wow! What a post. The press is releasing information that's been known for over a year, it's in the last week before the election and it's bashing Bush. So now all of a sudden Bush supporters are pro war and blind? That's just messed up and I even posted earlier that this administration has done a lot wrong. We did rush into war. I'm in the military right now. I know it sucks over there. People are risking their lives fighting these terrorists overseas so we don't have another 911 here in the USA. No one wants war. It hasn't been perfect. I don't agree with every decision Bush makes, but at least he is doing something. It's real easy for people to look at the hind sight and point out the mistakes that have been made. It's a war people. They don't call it that for nothing. It seems like everyone is suprised that these people are fighting back. The Saddam loyalists and terrorists want you to think that. Kerry wants you to think that so he can win the election and get us out of there. If we do not succeed in Iraq it will be devastating for the security of our country. Let me just say one more thing. If Iraq was able to hide 350 tons (that's at least 12 eighteen wheeler loads) of HMX explosives that we knew where it was, why is it so hard for you to believe that they didn't do the same hing w/ WMD that intelligence showed they were pursuing?

HA HA, damn that shit was hilarious. You know whats even more fucked up, the fact that Rumsfeld was the one that was suprised that insurgents would be so strong. He thought his Shock and Awe campaign would be the begin and end of all wars. The middle east is united through their Religion, did they really think that they would just sit, and let shit like that go down. Prime example is the collaberative effort to get Russia out of Afghanistan.

Doing something is focusing on Osama bin Laden and oinly him and his Al Qaeda network.

OH shit, it say's in the damn article that the Administration new about explosive and that they didn't guard them well. This is the same administration that has been given insurgents $1000 for their weapons. Why in the hell would you give money to insurgents for weapons, can they guarantee that these insurgents won't use this money to purchase more sophisticated weapons through the black market under their noses.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

Read the article again.

I read the article.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives.ap/index.htmlThe nuclear agency pulled out of Iraq in 1998, and by the time it returned in 2002, it confirmed that 35 tons of HMX that had been placed under IAEA seal were missing. HMX and RDX are the key components in plastic explosives, which insurgents have widely used in a series of bloody car bombings in Iraq.

NewYork Times
I.A.E.A. experts say they assume that just before the invasion the Iraqis followed their standard practice of moving crucial explosives out of buildings, so they would not be tempting targets. If so, the experts say, the Iraqi must have broken I.A.E.A. seals on bunker doors and moved most of the HMX to nearby fields, where it would have been lightly camouflaged - and ripe for looting

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

so, what was the about cognitive dissonance?

 

[Keio]

35 tons of HMX that had been placed under IAEA seal were missing

Which was explained by the Iraqi government to have been used in industrial purposes. And of the total of more than 380 tons, 350 tons were still left there, under the IAEA seal.

If so, the experts say, the Iraqi must have broken I.A.E.A. seals on bunker doors and moved most of the HMX to nearby fields, where it would have been lightly camouflaged - and ripe for looting.

Oh no, they broke the seals!?! Of course they would do that to prevent it being destroyed in the bombing. But the real mistake occured when the invasion force failed to secure the materials, even though the explosives were well known to be there.

So: 1) At least 350 tons of high explosives were still at the site when the invasion occured.
2) The materials were moved from the bunkers to nearby fields & camouflaged as was known by experts to probably happen in the event of bombing - and the invasion force failed to secure the materials, which have been "looted repeatedly".
3) A significant portion of the materials are now VERY PROBABLY in insurgent hands and explain how "improvised explosives" are a constant threat to the occupying force.

edit: there was a total of 350 tonnes of explosives at the site which is 380 tons

 

[MIMIC]

Bush doesn't even give a fuck:

White House plays down loss of explosives in Iraq

GREELEY, United States (AFP) - The White House played down the loss of 350 tonnes of high explosives in Iraq which Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry said was proof of the administration's "blunders."

Yahoo! News/AP

 

[BigGreenMat]

Look, I'm for this war even if Iraq NEVER had plans for any "weapons of mass destruction." So, you're going to have a hard time getting me to admit we screwed up in going to war.

Well Seth at least you are being honest. You simply wanted war and hey that is fine some people are like that. It bothers me that the president might be like that he is trying to not be held accountable for it.

 

[teiresias]

Timeline

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.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

Which was explained by the Iraqi government to have been used in industrial purposes. And of the total of more than 380 tons, 350 tons were still left there, under the IAEA seal.

Okay say they broke the seal without permission and took 35 tons of explosives for "Industrial Purposes." If they were using them for legitimate reasons, why hide it and go behind the IAEA'a back?

Oh no, they broke the seals!?! Of course they would do that to prevent it being destroyed in the bombing. But the real mistake occured when the invasion force failed to secure the materials, even though the explosives were well known to be there.

So: 1) At least 350 tons of high explosives were still at the site when the invasion occured.
2) The materials were moved from the bunkers to nearby fields & camouflaged as was known by experts to probably happen in the event of bombing - and the invasion force failed to secure the materials, which have been "looted repeatedly".
3) A significant portion of the materials are now VERY PROBABLY in insurgent hands and explain how "improvised explosives" are a constant threat to the occupying force.

edit: there was a total of 350 tonnes of explosives at the site which is 380 tons

It has been clearly stated that the weapons went missing before US forces arrived. It is a theory that they were moved to fields and then looted. We don't know where they are. One has to wonder after all that trouble was went to move the weapons, why they would just leave them out in the open under lite-camoflauge to be stolen.

 

[Keio]

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the explosives vanished from the al-Qaqaa facility near Baghdad during looting after the invasion.

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the nuclear watchdog, is to present a letter to the UN Security Council on Monday.

It is expected to spell out concerns about how the explosives were allowed to fall into the hands of looters while the site was under coalition control.

The IAEA said the US-led coalition had been warned about the danger posed by the explosives on several occasions.

It says the coalition forces were specifically told to keep the material secured.

What matters here is that there were 350 tons of military grade high explosive left at a storage facility/in the vicinity of it after the invasion and the explosives ended up in the wrong hands, probably in the arsenal of people fighting the occupation.

The coalition made a major blunder here. They secured the oil ministry in Bagdad but failed to grab 350 000 kg of explosives which are now killing soldiers.

Regarding the 35 tons that disappeared during the pause in inspections, there is no point in arguing what it was used for. The main point is that 350 tons were still left at the site when the invasion started so the looting happened after the war started AND probably could have been prevented.

 

[Ripclawe]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

The letter informed the IAEA that since Sept. 4, 2003, looting at the Al-Qaqaa installation south of Baghdad had resulted in the loss of 214.67 tons of HMX, 155.68 tons of RDX and 6.39 tons of PETN explosives.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200410252109.asp

NBC News: Miklaszewski: “April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al Qakaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing.

The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. In a letter this month, the Iraqi interim government told the International Atomic Energy Agency the high explosives were lost to theft and looting due to lack of security. Critics claim there were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles, weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in Iraq.” (NBC’s “Nightly News,” 10/25/04)

Looks like a IAEA CYA deal going on.

 

[Phoenix]

Let me just say one more thing. If Iraq was able to hide 350 tons (that's at least 12 eighteen wheeler loads) of HMX explosives that we knew where it was, why is it so hard for you to believe that they didn't do the same hing w/ WMD that intelligence showed they were pursuing?

Iraq didn't have to hide 350 tons of HMX explosives! He could have shaped it into giant floats and driven it through the streets of Baghdad. HMX is not a WMD and he was permitted to have it for the purposes that some of it was left out of 'quarantine'. The only reason the rest of it was locked up was because it is also powerful enough in dual use form to be used to ignite fissionable material.

1) HMX != WMD.
2) Before the war (before the inspectors left) we knew where it was - now we don't
3) There has been more than one occurence of this happening at a variety of facilities in Iraq

There is a very clear pattern to all of this, these facilities were not secured by coalition forces. That's pretty much the end of the story.

 

[Diablos]

These are WMD's! Therefore, we DID have a reason to go to Iraq![/Bush Supporter]

I don't think these are chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

 

[Phoenix]

The coalition made a major blunder here. They secured the oil ministry in Bagdad but failed to grab 350 000 kg of explosives which are now killing soldiers.

Why wouldn't they secure the oil ministry? One of the first targets of reprisal against the coalition was to blow up oil facilities and pipeline junctions all across the country. Securing the oil ministry made perfect sense. Securing the weapons caches in the country made sense ALSO - just didn't happen. I'm sure Bush considers this part of his "catastrophic success"

 

[Phoenix]

3) A significant portion of the materials are now VERY PROBABLY in insurgent hands and explain how "improvised explosives" are a constant threat to the occupying force.

edit: there was a total of 350 tonnes of explosives at the site which is 380 tons

No, these wouldn't qualify as an improvised road side bomb unless you used only a few ounces a shot. A sized HMX charge would blow the crap out of a scout such as a Hummer - you can't armor it enough to withstand that. Anyone with sense would use HMX against Abrams or in car bombs.

 

[Ripclawe]

http://www.drudgereport.com/

NBCNEWS: HUGE CACHE OF EXPLOSIVES VANISHED FROM SITE IN IRAQ -- AT LEAST 18 MONTHS AGO -- BEFORE TROOPS ARRIVED

uh..

 

[Phoenix]

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said President Bush wants to determine what went wrong.

McClellan, talking to reporters on Air Force One, said the storage site was the responsibility of the interim Iraqi government, not the United States, as of the June 28 transfer of power.

McClellan said the Iraqi government reported the missing weaponry to the IAEA in a letter dated October 10, and the IAEA informed the U.S. mission in Vienna on October 15. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice was told a few days later, then informed the president.

The Iraqi letter said the material disappeared "due to lack of security" of government installations during the looting that followed the fall of dictator Saddam Hussein's regime in April 2003.

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.

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.

How could the weapons have been missing for 18 months before the invasion if IAEA saw them and took inventory of them 2 months before the invasion of the country? Even looking past that - if the seals weren't broken in March and we invaded in March, it seems to me that the weapons were there at or right around the time of the invasion. Within the month before hostilities are to begin, one would think that airborne recon would be looking at these facilities and order sorties on them if someone was removing munitions from them. This place isn't exactly the size of a McDonalds.

 

[Outlaw Pro Mod]

**ABCNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 4 Times
**CBSNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 7 Times
**MSNBC Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 37 Times
**CNN Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 50 Times

 

[Tenguman]

So if we went in when Bush administration really wanted to, we would have found them?

*shock*

 

[CrimsonSkies]

It's sad that our media has a political agenda now.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

So if we went in when Bush administration really wanted to, we would have found them?

*shock*

Yeah, the pursuit of non WMDs.

 

[Phoenix]

So if we went in when Bush administration really wanted to, we would have found them?

*shock*

Yess, we would have found an assload of conventional high explosives. Oh wait, we weren't looking for those.

 

[MIMIC]

We need an "eyes roll out of head" smilie.

I just about did that at the entire story.

 

[Phoenix]

It's sad that our media has a political agenda now.

Its sad that you think that the media didn't have a political agenda before. They have a demographic that they serve and they will present stories to that demographic that appeal to that demographic. Nothing new about that - that's been the way of journalism since like forever.

 

[Shinobi]

As far as Saddam moving the WMD if he did infact have them, which I hope he didn't. If he can quickly move over 350 tons of HMX without us knowing, why is it a crock to believe he could have done the same thing with WMD. And Keio, the argument that they broke up the HMX is bogus. That's 350 tons or at least 12 full 18 wheelers. How much harder would it have been to move Anthrax powder?

It isn't the how (which is ridiculous enough...they can have satilite shots of trucks moving around, but the same satilites can't catch the shit being moved out the country?)...it's the why. Why in God's name would Saddam destroy or get rid of his weapons when he's about to be invaded? The one time you'd want to have any such weapons, is when someone is about to invade your ass. So facing that, why the hell would he flush 'em? It simply doesn't make sense.

 

[Ripclawe]

Pentagon released a statement saying it was already gone.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives/index.html

(CNN) -- The mystery surrounding the disappearance of 380 tons of powerful explosives from a storage depot in Iraq has taken a new twist, after a network embedded with the U.S. military during the invasion of Iraq reported that the material had already vanished by the time American troops arrived.

NBC News reported that on April 10, 2003, its crew was embedded with the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division when troops arrived at the Al Qaqaa storage facility south of Baghdad.

While the troops found large stockpiles of conventional explosives, they did not find HMX or RDX, the types of powerful explosives that reportedly went missing, according to NBC.

 

[Ripclawe]

bit of a sidenote from Drudge

[The source behind the NYT story first went to CBSNEWS' 60 MINUTES last Wednesday, but the beleaguered network wasn't able to get the piece on the air as fast as the newspaper could print. Executive producer Jeff Fager hoped to break the story during a high-impact election eve broadcast of 60 MINS on October 31.]

 

[Keio]

Pentagon official gives statement saying it was not gone.

"This stuff was well-known. Everyone knew it was there, and it should have been among the first sites to be secured," said a European diplomat familiar with the disappearance of the explosives, which was first reported Monday by The New York Times.

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said US-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

Regarding these earlier posts:

No, these wouldn't qualify as an improvised road side bomb unless you used only a few ounces a shot. A sized HMX charge would blow the crap out of a scout such as a Hummer - you can't armor it enough to withstand that. Anyone with sense would use HMX against Abrams or in car bombs.

Why wouldn't they secure the oil ministry? ... Securing the oil ministry made perfect sense.

True on both counts. My bad - car bombs of course. I picked the IED idea from some interviews. But I have to say they do have so much of the explosive stuff that they can afford waste it on humvees too

We don't know yet if HMX and RDX are behind the roadside bombs that are going off almost daily in Iraq. We've been told that they were artillery shells or other munitions, which is certainly possible. But now that we know that nearly 380 tons of this material was stolen, it seems that this is the most likely use for it by insurgents. It's lightweight, it's highly insensitive, so it can be kicked around without it detonating, it can be pressed into a variety of shapes -- it's ideal for the kinds of terrorist attacks U.S. troops and Iraqis have been experiencing.

Regarding the oil ministry I just think that they could've prioritized better. It's harder to repair the damage done by losing 350 000 kg of explosives, in my opinion.

 

[Makura]

Then why are we fighting a war in Iraq?

You can't possibly be that naive.

 

[Makura]

Yet another anti-Bush bomb has exploded and the shrapnel is firmly embedded in the foreheads of the CBS producers and New York Times editors who have recklessly lobbed their weapons of journalistic destruction on John Kerry's behalf.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000722.htm

:lol

 

[Nerevar]

You can't possibly be that naive.

Nice tag Makure

Ignorance is not only bliss, but a plausible state of being!

Please, show me your pile of evidence that proves terrorists were being trained in the Hussein-controlled region of Iraq prior to Bush's invasion. I, and I think the rest of the western world, would love to see it, considering we haven't seen any evidence yet.

 

[brooklyngooner]

You can't possibly be that naive.

With the possible exception of Cooter, you are absolutely the last person on this forum who should be throwing that jibe around.

 

[bob_arctor]

So once again, it all comes down to "This is true!" versus "No, it's not". Or, "We fucked up" versus "No, we didn't". So which is it then? My thing is, assuming we're all being lied to and disinformed by both parties (and I mean 100% across the board on any Iraq issue), assuming there's no real way to reach an absolute certainty, why not just choose the less inherently evil of the 2?

 

[Makura]

Please, show me your pile of evidence that proves terrorists were being trained in the Hussein-controlled region of Iraq prior to Bush's invasion. I, and I think the rest of the western world, would love to see it, considering we haven't seen any evidence yet.

I wasn't referring to that but we can discuss it if you'd like. I was referring to your disingenuous (IMO), notion that Iraq was some huge departure from the war on terror and getting rid of a madman makes the world less safe.

Do you believe the USA should declare war on terror and pursue it everywhere?

 

[xsarien]

Do you believe the USA should declare war on terror and pursue it everywhere?

Tell me how your mind can possibly comprehend - and see no problem with - declaring war on a tactic. A "War on Terror" needs to be as figurative as what you're fighting, and that's done with brains, not brawn.