TONS of Explosives missing in Iraq!

Crash

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
The Doctor said:
The reporters think they were at al Qaqaa; they weren't certain. ;)
They were either at al Qaqaa OR they found the missing explosives!

It says "al Qaaqa" on the box!!!!!
 

Crash

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
The Doctor said:
Then we need to send them to Syria to find the rest of the WMD! :p
I think you need to provide at least a tiny bit of proof first. Remember that Saddam declared these missing explosives even with their ability to be used for WMD.

It is far more likely that Saddam played a dangerous game of brinkmanship and lost. He needed to display some strength in the region. It seems far more likely that when you only use people that have a vested interest in Saddam's overthrowing as intelligence sources one gets what they want to see.

I know how hard it would be for some to admit that there were no WMD -because the UN sanctions were working- and that they let other dangerous goods go missing.
 

MountainMan

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
175
Reaction score
0
Location
Colorado Rocky Mts, USA
Country
llUnited States
today's hot news flash is that reporters vidoetaped what appear to be the explosives just after we took over. The clincher is the presence of seals on the drums, as a former chief inspector for WMD's says the Iraqi's never used seals on anything; therefore the seals on the drums indicate IAEC material.

The other clincher, of course, is the government's solemn announcement that the theft couldn't have happened because "we would have seen something like that." :rolleyes:

Oh yeah...
 

The Doctor

Junk Science Debunker
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
345
Reaction score
50
Location
Houston/Dallas, TX
Country
llUnited States
Crash said:
I think you need to provide at least a tiny bit of proof first. Remember that Saddam declared these missing explosives even with their ability to be used for WMD.
Saddam was required to prove their dispostion, the inspectors were supposed to verify Saddam's compliance. 9-11 reduced our tolerance to ZERO.
It is far more likely that Saddam played a dangerous game of brinkmanship and lost. He needed to display some strength in the region. It seems far more likely that when you only use people that have a vested interest in Saddam's overthrowing as intelligence sources one gets what they want to see.
The lesson for the post 9-11 world - Do not play brinksmanship with the USA - YOU WILL LOSE.
I know how hard it would be for some to admit that there were no WMD -because the UN sanctions were working- and that they let other dangerous goods go missing.
Do to the fact that Saddam was using those sanctions as an excuse for starving kids to death - pressure was mounting to ease them. Then he was going to go right back to his quest for nukes.

Crash - you do some excellent research, just like Rick. I'm just a Neandrathal who simply sees black & white.
 

CPangracs

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
8
Location
Within My Means
Country
llUnited States
Crash said:
I do think it's important that we get to the bottom of this explosives issue.

The WHOLE reason Iraq was attacked was to avoid weapons falling into terrorist hands. To then go and practically hand them over would be outrageous to say the least.
No, ONE of the reasons was weapons of mass destruction, i.e., nuclear chemical, and bioligical weapons, which the UN inspectors were insisting all was destroyed (without supporting evidence, BTW), yet we see explosives used to trigger nuclear explosions exsisting in Iraq as late as March 2003?! Come on, let's get real here.

Think about it and you'll understand. We knew about many different conventional munitions sites, and many THOUSANDS of tons WERE isolated and destroyed, and are in some cases, used by us even now!

However, as is evidenced now, intel was not perfect, and cooperation from a UN agency could NOT be expected, and may have been suppressed from release to the US for obvious reasons.

I think this is another reason Kerry wants to put this little fiasco behind him ASAP and now is moving on to the internal workings of a company NOT in control of the Bush Administration, but this is being erroneously inferred by Kerry and his ignorant campaign team.
 

ER_Chaser

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,962
Reaction score
1
Location
NYC
Country
llChina
sigh.. I have been reading this thread for a long time ... Doc and Curt, I understand your political points, but I am afraid, I truly felt you guys are NOT objective on this issue.
 

CPangracs

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
8
Location
Within My Means
Country
llUnited States
ER_Chaser said:
sigh.. I have been reading this thread for a long time ... Doc and Curt, I understand your political points, but I am afraid, I truly felt you guys are NOT objective on this issue.
Ummm, okay,..so you are saying the others ARE objective?

Do tell!
 

purdyrc

Duke Nukem
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
278
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia
CPangracs said:
I think this is another reason Kerry wants to put this little fiasco behind him ASAP and now is moving on to the internal workings of a company NOT in control of the Bush Administration, but this is being erroneously inferred by Kerry and his ignorant campaign team.
To be fair, Bush's ignorant campaign team has erroneously inferred things for weeks now. Where's the outrage over that?

Kerry's (and Bush's) messages are crafted day-by-day. Today, it was time to talk about Halliburton. Tomorrow, we'll be back to asking about the explosives.

- Rick
 

The Doctor

Junk Science Debunker
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
345
Reaction score
50
Location
Houston/Dallas, TX
Country
llUnited States
ER - of course we're not objective. Neither are Rick, Crash or Mountain Man. We all come at this issue from our own perspective.

Rick and Crash believe we should have worked more through diplomatic channels.

Mountain Man hates President Bush.

Curt, Richa333 and I believe the threshold for military action against people like was correctly lowered after 9-11.
 

The Doctor

Junk Science Debunker
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
345
Reaction score
50
Location
Houston/Dallas, TX
Country
llUnited States
Breaking on Drudge:
FLASH 10.29.04 11:36:56 ET /// Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al QaQaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Officer was ordered to join the 101st airborne on April 13 -- to destroy conventional explosives at the al QaQaa complex... Developing...
 

Kraut

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,328
Reaction score
1
Location
Germany
Country
llGermany
The Doctor said:
Breaking on Drudge:
200t, nice, so now you are telling us that you maybe destroy munition that is now missing but have no prooves whether you actually destroyed them or not ?? May I quote your earlier posts?

Saddam was required to prove their dispostion, the inspectors were supposed to verify Saddam's compliance. 9-11 reduced our tolerance to ZERO.

So, you were accusing Saddam of doing something you now use as an excuse for your own actions ? This is just priceless :laugh: :devil: :laugh:
 
Last edited:

The Doctor

Junk Science Debunker
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
345
Reaction score
50
Location
Houston/Dallas, TX
Country
llUnited States
Kraut said:
200t, nice, so now you are telling us that you maybe destroy munition that is now missing but have no prooves whether you actually destroyed them or not ?? May I quote your earlier posts?

Saddam was required to prove their dispostion, the inspectors were supposed to verify Saddam's compliance. 9-11 reduced our tolerance to ZERO.

So, you were accusing Saddam of doing something you now use as an excuse for your own actions ? This is just priceless :laugh: :devil: :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Very good Kraut!!! Just one minor difference - the UN resolutions requiring Saddam's compliance sort of applied to Saddam and not the USA. That said, this whole story could have been avoided if the Army had spent more time on inventory and less on fighting. To paraphrase one of my other posts - The whole freaking country was an Ammo Dump!
 

CPangracs

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
8
Location
Within My Means
Country
llUnited States
The Doctor said:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Very good Kraut!!! Just one minor difference - the UN resolutions requiring Saddam's compliance sort of applied to Saddam and not the USA. That said, this whole story could have been avoided if the Army had spent more time on inventory and less on fighting. To paraphrase one of my other posts - The whole freaking country was an Ammo Dump!
Yeah,...how dare those soldiers ignore their inventory duties to fight! Can't trust anyone!
:rolleyes: :nuts:
 

chrisvalla

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
645
Reaction score
1
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Country
llUnited States
ER... there's just not a lot of middle ground this time around; it's pretty much one or the other with an automatic dislike of the other and anything associated with them... or dislike both :D
 

chrisvalla

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
645
Reaction score
1
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Country
llUnited States
The Doctor said:
Does anyone prefer Shemp to Curly?
I just don't like Shemp... he didn't take a smack very well and was really slow on the vertical-hand eye-poke block... and you just can't go with a guy who can't defend himself very well... :cheeky:
 

Kraut

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,328
Reaction score
1
Location
Germany
Country
llGermany
CPangracs said:
Yeah,...how dare those soldiers ignore their inventory duties to fight! Can't trust anyone!
:rolleyes: :nuts:
Oh, wait, let me get this clear, you invaded Iraq with the reasoning that otherwise terrorists might get dangerous material into their hands. We now know that they didn't get it during Saddams regime because these dangerous explosives were still there after US forces secured the installation. But we also know that terrorists might now have this dangerous stuff as a direct result of a not propperly planed and rushed invasion that didn't include enough soldiers to guard those dangerous sites. And that's a direct result of your CinC and Rummys descision of how to conduct this war... and you still support this man, beliving he will make your daily live safer ?
 

purdyrc

Duke Nukem
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
278
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia
Kraut said:
Oh, wait, let me get this clear, you invaded Iraq with the reasoning that otherwise terrorists might get dangerous material into their hands. We now know that they didn't get it during Saddams regime because these dangerous explosives were still there after US forces secured the installation. But we also know that terrorists might now have this dangerous stuff as a direct result of a not propperly planed and rushed invasion that didn't include enough soldiers to guard those dangerous sites. And that's a direct result of your CinC and Rummys descision of how to conduct this war... and you still support this man, beliving he will make your daily live safer ?
That's what it boils down to.

- Rick
 
Top