Vast explosives cache missing in Iraq, U.N. says

Discussion in 'World Events' started by TruthSeeker, Oct 25, 2004.

  1. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Vast explosives cache missing in Iraq, U.N. says
    "VIENNA, Austria - Several hundred tons of conventional explosives are missing from a former Iraqi military facility that once played a key role in President Saddam Hussein’s efforts to build a nuclear bomb, the U.N. nuclear agency confirmed Monday."

    How incompetent.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Still, I won't be surprised if there are people that still insists on Bush...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    from the nominal look of things, that's a big blunder. i'm sure there are more things to this matter that complicate it.

    LGF's view on this is logical, in the fact that had Kerry been in power, those explosives would've been in Saddam's hands, and therefore Kerry should just have a nice cup of STFU

    but such strategically important sites should definitely be better secured.
    i'm sure there are plans formulated as we read and rant, about other similar sites.

    and no, i don't think Kerry would do a better job at securing the other such sites.

    additionally, while 340 tons went missing, 248000 tons were secured. that means that 0.137% of all such weapons were "blundered"

    considering the chaos and looting in a post-war transitional environment, securing 99.863% of all the stockpiles of explosives is a damn good figure.
    remember, they (terrorists) have to be lucky once. we (civilized world) have to be skillful, all the time. a 99.863% success rate is good

    so, how about that for a "blunder"? and how about those "no WMDs"?
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2004
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    they (terrorists) have to be lucky once. we (civilized world) have to be skilful

    I wouldn’t call a criminal invasion of a nation necessarily civil. Secondly "terrorists" if you use the idiotic term to much it looses its value. These people are fighting (morally) against an illegal occupation force. I remember the US called these same Islamic insurgents in Afghanistan against the USSR...what was it..."freedom fighters" (funny how you of all people complain about “buzz words”) . Thirdly about Kerry and Saddam, Kerry understood what Bush seems to have ignored. The sanctions worked, just because Saddam would have had those weapons doesn’t mean he would have used them, especially not against the US. Now that Saddam is gone, those weapons are going to be used against the US. So in reality logic is not on your side, because now the weapons are being used for what the invasion was supposed to avoid, alas killing Americans. Oh the sweet irony of it all…
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Thanks you, Undecided. I couldn't have put it any better.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Not at all!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Nor could I. But some further thoughts anyway:

    At least until various somethings go tragically "boom", this thread may belong more in Politics- It's going "boom" now for W politically, but the World Events blowback will have an incalculable delay and duration.

    How many Lockerbies, Embassies, WTC 1 attacks, IUDs, and car-bombs can 350 TONS of easily-transportable high explosives power? Bush was not blindsided, and was not "out of the loop" as the Gipper would say. Bush was warned by the UN/IAEA and his own Pentagon staff to specifically safeguard this tremendous boon to the Iraqi resistance, and he did not take a leadership role in doing so; This President clearly failed in his much-ballyhooed "resolved" "bear any burden" defense of America.

    "Shame" does not even approach a fair description. "Incompetent", as Kerry has responded, does.

    Bush is Kerry-er: For America's sake, please join thinking citizens in voting the neocon nuts and nitwits out of office next week.
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Re: LGF

    The LGF link comes back to a point I'd been avoiding because I thought it one of my pettier reactions to Bush, but hey, LGF raised the point:

    What's with the barb at the U.N.? Regardless of how the author feels about the UN or the New York Times, it might be worthwhile to consider the chain of information:

    The report of the theft seems to originate with the Iraqi Ministry of Science, not the United Nations.

    To overlook this simple fact in order to mount a swipe at the U.N. and New York Times seriously challenges my perception of the LGF author's logic.

    Additionally, LGF's local supporter seems to think Kerry should shut the fuck up on the grounds that, "I don't think Kerry would do a better job at securing ... such sites".

    This is the soft bigotry of low expectations. It is heartbreaking to a Bush supporter that Bush chose to not secure this site, which was part of the erroneous claim of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    What was the planning process on that one?
    We're invading because of Weapons of Mass Destruction, so the logical thing to do is to not secure this site, which is part of the suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    Additionally, relying on the 248,000 tons of destroyed munitions as a response is somewhat fallacious:
    • The number 0.137% relies on the presumption that these 380 tons of missing material are the last materials left to be recovered.
    • The flip-side of 0.137%, being 99.863%, is equally presumptuous.
    • Considering the chaos and looting, why was the decision made to not secure this site? ​

    In the end, logic doesn't distort the twisting of facts in support of a cheap distraction. But we know, we know ... decisions such as whether or not to secure a site suspected to be among the keys to one's reasons for having a war in the first place ... well, those decisions are hard work. Especially if one must figure out how to arrange troops whose numbers are too scarce for the job ahead of them. And deciding how many troops to send? Well, that's hard work. One must put effort into finding a reason to ignore one's generals (cf GlobalPolicy, CBS, CommonDreams).

    And what's with the beating of the WMD horse? It's dead. Dead. Why distract the present with some two-bit, irrelevant assertion of the past?
    ____________________

    Notes:
    LGF. "Logic Doesn't Like John Kerry". October 25, 2004. See http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=13288_Logic_Doesnt_Like_John_Kerry

    Associated Press. "Vast explosives cache reported missing in Iraq". MSNBC.com, October 25, 2004. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

    See Also -
    Schmitt, Eric. "Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force's Size". GlobalPolicy.org, February 28, 2003. See http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm

    CBS/Associated Press. "CIA's Bleak Outlook On Iraq". CBSNews.com, September 16, 2004. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/16/iraq/main643836.shtml

    Agence Presse France. "US 'Never' Had Enough Troops in Iraq: Bremer". CommonDreams.org, October 5, 2004. See http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1005-02.htm
     
  10. CounslerCoffee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,997
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2004
  11. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    hey, how about this?
    http://www.drudgereport.com/nbcw.htm

    another media smear against Bush exposed.
    first it was CBS, now it was (what a surprise) the Grey Old Spinster

    This is the soft bigotry of low expectations. It is heartbreaking to a Bush supporter that Bush chose to not secure this site, which was part of the erroneous claim of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
    "soft bigotry"... heh. you can coin this one tiassa.
    it means i think one candidate is better than the other.
    Bush, or rather his military strategists, did choose to secure this type of sites. even if this smear was not exposed, i'd still support the brilliant military strategists (the same strategists that would be working under Kerry, i suppose) because then, as i mentioned in my previous post, it would mean that more than 99% of these sites would've been secured.

    now it was proven that all 100% of them were secured. that particular site was looted before US even arrived there.

    furthermore,
    Saddam, in March of 2003, was sitting on the 4th-largest stockpile of weapons. this so called "much weakened" Saddam army.

    let's make the count.
    1) USA
    2) Russia (my guess)
    3) China (my guess)
    4) IRAQ???

    yep, no danger there.
     
  12. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,624
    Cloudcroft chief stops Israelis with suspicious cargo
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3484.htm

    What with this big story out of Iraq that some 300 tons of high explosives have gone missing, it seems appropriate to remind posters that over the last couple years, there have been numerous incidents where suspicious trucks have been stopped that tested positive for explosives by the US police only to have the FBI step in, declare the tests were all wrong, then ship the drivers back home to Israel.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    why do they call it "liberation of Iraq" when it really is "occupation/invasion of Iraq"
    same happened with Latvia during the WW2
    Russia came in and told that they were liberating us. Oh yeah, 50 years of liberation *cough*occupation*cough*
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2004
  14. vslayer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,969
    huh? where do you live

    besides, i would love to live in russia or a country controlled by it. communism rocks
     
  15. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    I live In Latvia
    ---
    that's the problem with you westerners (down under counts too)
    you've never witnessed the building of communism on your skin, therefore you still have utopic dreams of the beauty of it, but in reality the people here know no bigger nightmare than it and the consequences are dire.
     
  16. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    Because it hasn't been done well doesn't mean it can't.
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    How so?
     
  18. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    how so...

    when i say i prefer Bush over Kerry you call it "soft bigotry".
    in that case, call me and anyone else with low expectations of Kerry a "soft bigot" lol

    involving the word "bigotry" in here is an original idea, and i thought you can coin it.. or maybe copyright it. the media has been in short supply of emotional logical fallacies... i'm not sure that this one is, but it's just so damn funny

    what do u think about the new info anyways?
     
  19. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Bush, or rather his military strategists, did choose to secure this type of sites.

    Let's not forget that the first site in Baghdad to be secured, was not the ministry of the military, or information, it was the ministry of oil. The rhetoric doesn't stand up in tandem with the reality here. I remember back in April '03 the Iraqi Museum was begging the US for assistance, but instead was protecting oil ministry instead. Also instead of securing this ammo dump (the amount of explosives stolen are enough to bring down every airliner in the world. It only took less then one pound of the stuff to destroy a Pan Am ove Scotland, and all that tonnage of weaponry can destroy every single HUMMVE in Iraq, source CNN). Again rhetoric doens't add up with logic.

    even if this smear was not exposed, i'd still support the brilliant military strategists (the same strategists that would be working under Kerry, i suppose) because then, as i mentioned in my previous post, it would mean that more than 99% of these sites would've been secured.

    Oh yes how very brillant, the viliant Iraqi military put up such a amazing defence but the American forces ever the stronger with God, and conviction on their side (sheds a tear), shock and awing their way to a besiged capital won the "liberation" for Iraq. How the innate idiocy of it all. Firstly the war in Iraq was pathetically easy, it was a sad irony and commentary on how ineffectual Iraq's military actually was, this mega military that threatened the world...how very sick and sad.

    now it was proven that all 100% of them were secured. that particular site was looted before US even arrived there.

    That's still speculation from what I heard, the fact remains the US did not have enough men, or material to secure all these sites adequately.

    Saddam, in March of 2003, was sitting on the 4th-largest stockpile of weapons. this so called "much weakened" Saddam army.

    Don't talk of what you don't know, that is one of my axioms. You see oth, when your military has weapons from the 1960's as your frontline tank, or jet, you aren't exactly all that powerful. When you don't have spare parts, when you don't have well trained soldiers your military is as shitty as shitty can be.

    let's make the count.
    1) USA
    2) Russia (my guess)
    3) China (my guess)
    4) IRAQ???

    yep, no danger there.


    That's right there was no real danger, to the layman such as yourself these "stats" (love to see the source) would scare the ignorant. Of course people don't understand that these are nothing without putting them into context. The context here was simple no one feared Saddam, if they did why did no state around Iraq support the invasion? Wasn't Saddam going to invade and kill them all? Wouldn't it be in their best interests to get rid of him? Oth stop guessing and start thinking.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    hey i never said it was a very efficient army. i said (actually the stats said.. and the source is in the last link i put in my other post) it had the 4th-largest stockpile of weapons.

    these could've been given to, or looted by, terrorist cells. he was aiding and abeting terrorism already in Israel, and he ordered some cells to attack the US (as Putin said) before the invasion.

    big danger there.

    by the way, did you go to the lecture by Michael Oren yesterday? you would've learned something about the Middle East and why people like Saddam present grave danger to the entire world, including American interests
     
  21. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    hey i never said it was a very efficient army. i said (actually the stats said.. and the source is in the last link i put in my other post) it had the 4th-largest stockpile of weapons.

    But you ignorantly (becuase I don't believe you understand what you are saying) misapporiated the threat to a level which did not exist. Let's put it back in the context to which you presented the "threat" along the lines of Russia and China. To an idiot yes that would look so very scary but so would a pumpkin. Like I said, when Saddam said Boo you cried.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    these could've been given to, or looted by, terrorist cells. he was aiding and abeting terrorism already in Israel, and he ordered some cells to attack the US (as Putin said) before the invasion.

    Ah the irony here is that he didn't, no instead the US facilitated this to happen by not adequately protecting the sites. The US did was she was supposed to prevent, and Saddam did what the US was supposed to do, doesn't that strike you as...odd?

    big danger there.

    The big danger here is not Saddam, he was lame and was losing control of his country. The big danger is breaking international law, and disregarding morality for PNAC, Israel, Oil, and profit.

    by the way, did you go to the lecture by Michael Oren yesterday? you would've learned something about the Middle East and why people like Saddam present grave danger to the entire world, including American interests

    Oh yes the presentation presented by that Zionist organization. Oh yes the unbias view of the Middle East...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    obviously the man is an idiot if he believed Saddam of all people was a threat in 2003. In 1989 surely, this war should have been done in 1989 not now.
     
  22. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Is there any evidence the Bush administration knew of this explosive cache but did nothing about it? I think some Anti-Bush people might be jumping the gun here: this could just be a blunder of the Pentagon.
     
  23. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    they were on their way there. before they had arrived it was already looted.

    and nico, the man did not say a thing about Iraq or Saddam, except that the Americans are being very brutal in Fallujah

    and he did not "regurgitate Zionist propaganda". he's a historian and he presented some very interesting things.

    he said that things don't happen because of rational thought in the middle east. the athmosphere is so charged that any small event or a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding can lead to total war and destruction, as it apparently did in 1967.
    all you need is a little spark, and the whole room, which is full of gas, will explode.

    saddam was not sparking the whole thing, he was using a flamethrower.

    nowadays there is nobody in the Soviet side the US can phonecall (which it did a month before 67 to stop a planned Egyptian attack). if a war breaks out, the whole world will be in turmoil again.

    Saddam was a grave threat to everyone's interests, not just the US, by being sparky. anyway, that's a whole different debate.

    i didn't rank the armies in order of strength, but in order of amount of weapons. please read carefully. such assumptions and bad reading skills will get you D's in university.

    the weapons were there, available for just about anyone to grab, including those who Saddam gave the weapons to.

    if u don't agree that's fine. that's all i'm gonna say about that
     

Share This Page