NationStates Jolt Archive

How can anyone leave 380 tons of explosives unguarded?

They figured it would all be too heavy to carry away. :rolleyes:

No. The weapons inspectors were in Iraq when Bush told them to leave upon the start of the war.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm

happy?
My apologies. I read something about being kicked out or ordered to leave. The US did neither. It is common practice to WARN, not order, civilian persons to leave a potential combat zone. These people were not there guarding the explosives this thread is in regards to, they were searching for WMD.

I will state this again: Nukes are not that hard.

Why do you all assume that Saddam Hussein is an idiot? Attacking the USA would have been a breathtakingly stupid move.

Oh, I forgot, Saddam attacked the USA on 9/11. Silly me.

It is not about giving us cash, it is about giving us what we need to do the job, and giving us respect. I have sat here on these threads and heard insults about how the military is stupid and votes Republican without thinking(chess squares, yes, I mean you) And so much "concern"for the military. Personally I think that anyone who supports the policies of Kerry has no business claiming to support the troops. Kerry is himself not a bad guy, as I have said, but his policies would gut the military, even more than Clinton, who was the worst Commander in Chief in my service time as well as the service time of everyone I have spoken with.

The general gist of what I was trying to say was "republicans are more often pro-military."

Of course, some take that as a good thing, other's take it as a bad thing...

The group beheading foreign civilians, is a branch of al Qaeda. I assume you remember 9-11, they attacked us before we invaded. I do not imply that Saddam had anything to do with it, but as I said, it is better now they are fighting there, than here.

I belong to a group called Al Pieda, a branch of Al Qaeda. I just confessed so you know it's true.

*beheads a cream pie*

'A senior administration official played down the importance of the missing explosives, describing them as dangerous material but "stuff you can buy anywhere."

"In the grand scheme -- and on a grand scale -- there are hundreds of tons of weapons, munitions, artillery, explosives that are unaccounted for in Iraq," the official said.'

Ebay item 31762832: **NEVER USED BEFORE!! FISHING AND QUARRYING EXPLOSIVE!! CAN BE USED FOR DEMOLITION**

Maybe it was kind of convenient for the explosives to get lost. That way no one would see the 'Made in US' tags on them and the attached receipts as countersigned by Ronald Dumsfeld!!

'"John Kerry has no vision for fighting and winning the war on terror, so he is basing his attack on the headlines he wakes up to each day," said Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt.'

To be fair, at least Kerry doesn't cause the aforementioned headlines to be made. Yet.

The general gist of what I was trying to say was "republicans are more often pro-military."

Of course, some take that as a good thing, other's take it as a bad thing...
I understood your gist. My gist was that it is not about being automatic, it is an earned respect as far as the military back to republicans as well. Anyone who takes it as a bad thing to support the troops you send into combat(we do not choose our wars, you all do) really should move imho.(not meaning you, I meant that for those you said might take pro-military as a "bad thing")

I find all of these comments interesting. Explosives go missing, People are being killed and it's all the Democrats/Republicans fault. Saddam needed to be taken out of the picture. I may be wrong but the UN Sanctions against him included the fact that he was not to pursue WMD's. Much less have them.

Even the Weapon Inspectors for the most part admit that they were being led around by Saddam's men. They were told to talk to only certain persons and look in certain buildings and all questions were to go through Saddams men who were leading them around by their noses.

Remember the 2 Missles modified to fly past the range limitations? He wasn't suppose to have them, his exscuse? "oh, We forgot to list them and destroy them." Hmm, they were ready for a payload... and all that poison that was found Ricilin wasn't it? His scientists admitted that they were ordered to create WMD's but didn't because they didn't know where to start? so what, we wait till he actually had them? Wait till he actually attacks American Citizens or our allies? Remember our 'faulty' intelligence was from the same reports that Saddam himself was getting.

Funny how his missles could hit that Kuait shopping mall (which I think, was beyond his missle range limits.)

Funny how defiant he was until the final days of the countdown... then he seemed desparate... like he just found out that he really didn't have the weaopns he wanted.

Funny that his only reason for invading Kuait in the first place was to remove all evidence of the billions he borrowed from Kuait to fund his military machine... the same he used on Kuait. showing he is willing to use the weapons he got.

For those of you who say Saddam wasn't a threat... name the city you want destroyed before you will see the threat Saddam was.

BTW, my sources are Friends who are retired from the Military (Nameless to protect them.)

Who do I blame for the Iraq situation? Saddam, if he wasn't so filled with pride and mistrust, he would still be in power and we wouldn't be there trying to defuse the powder keg known as the Middle East.

I find all of these comments interesting. Explosives go missing, People are being killed and it's all the Democrats/Republicans fault. Saddam needed to be taken out of the picture. I may be wrong but the UN Sanctions against him included the fact that he was not to pursue WMD's. Much less have them.

Even the Weapon Inspectors for the most part admit that they were being led around by Saddam's men. They were told to talk to only certain persons and look in certain buildings and all questions were to go through Saddams men who were leading them around by their noses.

Remember the 2 Missles modified to fly past the range limitations? He wasn't suppose to have them, his exscuse? "oh, We forgot to list them and destroy them." Hmm, they were ready for a payload... and all that poison that was found Ricilin wasn't it? His scientists admitted that they were ordered to create WMD's but didn't because they didn't know where to start? so what, we wait till he actually had them? Wait till he actually attacks American Citizens or our allies? Remember our 'faulty' intelligence was from the same reports that Saddam himself was getting.

Funny how his missles could hit that Kuait shopping mall (which I think, was beyond his missle range limits.)

Funny how defiant he was until the final days of the countdown... then he seemed desparate... like he just found out that he really didn't have the weaopns he wanted.

Funny that his only reason for invading Kuait in the first place was to remove all evidence of the billions he borrowed from Kuait to fund his military machine... the same he used on Kuait. showing he is willing to use the weapons he got.

For those of you who say Saddam wasn't a threat... name the city you want destroyed before you will see the threat Saddam was.

BTW, my sources are Friends who are retired from the Military (Nameless to protect them.)

Who do I blame for the Iraq situation? Saddam, if he wasn't so filled with pride and mistrust, he would still be in power and we wouldn't be there trying to defuse the powder keg known as the Middle East.
Well put. Thanks.

I understood your gist. My gist was that it is not about being automatic, it is an earned respect as far as the military back to republicans as well. Anyone who takes it as a bad thing to support the troops you send into combat(we do not choose our wars, you all do) really should move imho.(not meaning you, I meant that for those you said might take pro-military as a "bad thing")

I don't think it's a matter of supporting the troops (at least now) then it is what their fighting for.

For example, a lot of people don't see why we need such an excruciatingly large military. There's difference between cutting down on military spending and disrespecting the troops themselves.

I don't think it's a matter of supporting the troops (at least now) then it is what their fighting for.

For example, a lot of people don't see why we need such an excruciatingly large military. There's difference between cutting down on military spending and disrespecting the troops themselves.
Yet it is funny these same people are saying the military is too small to do it's job. Kerry wants 2 more Army Divisions, I actually think great idea! Except I know he never will do it without a draft, or without greatly increasing benefits to keep troops in service. As for the draft, horrible idea, as for increasing our benefits, I have never heard or know anyone who has heard of a Democrat doing that for us, so I seriously doubt that.

Diamond Mind,
you are entitled. Good job, but I think you are wrong. Herte is my 2 cents worth.

I dont think Kerry has it in him to "Stand and Fight" I just dont see it. He has flipped a lot on the issues, in my mind, and tells people what they want to hear. Kerry finds it hard to stand up to politicians in his own party, let alone terrorists. What would happen if terrorists kidnapped someone and demanded reparations. Kerry would cave, you know he would. I dont think Bush would cave.
The Brits are negoiating right now, and thats the worse thing that can happen. Now they (the terrorists) know that all they have to do to get their way is to kidnap/kill more people. They are learning that the way to "Bring Down America and its allies" is to spill the blood of one innocent. With that line of reasoning, before too long it will be unstopable. There is a reason we dont negotiate with terrorists or kidnappers.
I say, stop it RIGHT NOW. Keep Bush as president, and lets stop the maddness...even if we have to lose a few people now, its better then lots of people in 10 years, or 20, or more.

And as a soldier for 18 years, I am going into harms way, again, soon. Its my duty, and my right, and my privilage to go and serve. So i know all about the death and destruction. I want it to stop RIGHT NOW, and stay home with my family. BUt i want my family to be safe in 20 years, not worried about the next terrorist explosion. So to me, Bush has it right. A little pain now, to avoid a lot of pain later.

I don't know that Kerry would cave. His record as I've pointed out shows that he has stood up against powerful forces in both parties and the CIA, as well as some heavy international players. I appreciate your service to our country, but I have doubts that terrorism is something that can ever be stopped right now or in the future. It is a simple fact of empire in the post-modern era. There will be no great armies rising up against us, only terrorists.

Myself, Captain with the 4ID. And yes, I looked too, there are aspects I do not like much about the current president, but he is honest. Wears his heart on his sleeve basically. I actually like Kerry, the man, somewhat also, but have grown further and further from his position after the debates, after seeing how many(not all) of those who support him, do it with one side while talking about the evil,inept USA out the other side, and I decided, pretty much today, that I do not want a C-in-C who has the approval of our fringe left"allies"in Europe,and our fringe left America haters in this country.

SFC, 2ID, and my "Country" name speaks for itself. Headed for 3/3 ID next week or so, and from there back to play in the "Big Sandbox!"

I have spent about 6 years with 1-8 IN in 3/4ID, and time at Hood with 1st CD...
wish I was going back to Carson instead of Benning!!!

Take care, and thanks again.

...Funny post.
But why would Saddam attack the US or its allies in the first place?
Couldn't it be that Saddam tryed to protect himself actually?
Oh yes, Saddam is EVIL 1!1!1!1 one one one 1!1 OMG WTF.

Well, I hate to say it, but at least we will see those explosives soon. :eek:

Because Bush was directly responsible for this.


Of course you believe that. It doesn't matter that the story has been debunked as an attempt to alter the results of the election. It doesn't matter that the story was known to be false when it was printed. It doesn't matter that the explosives were not there when the troops arrived. All that matters is you folks have something else to trash President Bush and the USA for.

My apologies. I read something about being kicked out or ordered to leave. The US did neither. It is common practice to WARN, not order, civilian persons to leave a potential combat zone. These people were not there guarding the explosives this thread is in regards to, they were searching for WMD.

Hey man. I'm gonna be shooting a high-caliber rifle round at your head in a minute.

I'm not gonna tell you to get out of the way, though. Your choice.



You said that Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors. In fact, they were actively inspecting - with great success, actually - when the war began. And your response is to play games with the semantics.

I don't want to say "typical", but it really is.

I Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but the military did move to secure the site. They were already gone when they got there.

“The NYTIMES urgently reported on Monday in an apparent October Surprise: The Iraqi interim government and the U.N. nuclear agency have warned the United States that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives are now missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations. Jumping on the TIMES exclusive, Dem presidential candidate John Kerry blasted the Bush administration for its failure to ‘guard those stockpiles.’

“...But tonight, NBCNEWS reported: The 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives were already missing back in April 10, 2003 -- when U.S. troops arrived at the installation south of Baghdad! An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.* According to NBCNEWS, the HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.”

Hey man. I'm gonna be shooting a high-caliber rifle round at your head in a minute.

I'm not gonna tell you to get out of the way, though. Your choice.



You said that Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors. In fact, they were actively inspecting - with great success, actually - when the war began. And your response is to play games with the semantics.

I don't want to say "typical", but it really is.
Hey kid...the weapons inspectors were kicked out nearly a DOZEN times by Saddam. And you have alot of first hand experience to obtain before you pretend to lecture me on the situation in Iraq.

I Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but the military did move to secure the site. They were already gone when they got there.
Thanks, yes, it's been mentioned several times, including by those of us who actually have been on the ground in Iraq at that time, but that fact keeps being glossed over here, of course.

'A senior administration official played down the importance of the missing explosives, describing them as dangerous material but "stuff you can buy anywhere."

"In the grand scheme -- and on a grand scale -- there are hundreds of tons of weapons, munitions, artillery, explosives that are unaccounted for in Iraq," the official said.'

Ebay item 31762832: **NEVER USED BEFORE!! FISHING AND QUARRYING EXPLOSIVE!! CAN BE USED FOR DEMOLITION**

Maybe it was kind of convenient for the explosives to get lost. That way no one would see the 'Made in US' tags on them and the attached receipts as countersigned by Ronald Dumsfeld!!

'"John Kerry has no vision for fighting and winning the war on terror, so he is basing his attack on the headlines he wakes up to each day," said Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt.'

To be fair, at least Kerry doesn't cause the aforementioned headlines to be made. Yet.
Actually their weapons were made in Russia primarily, then France,then Germany...ring a bell? Three UN Security Council members who wanted to save some business maybe? I don't blame them, but I find it ridiculous that people think the US armed Saddam, funny how NONE of his equipt was American.We supported him vs Iran as the lesser of two evils, but did not arm or otherwise equip his forces.

Actually their weapons were made in Russia primarily, then France,then Germany...ring a bell? Three UN Security Council members who wanted to save some business maybe? I don't blame them, but I find it ridiculous that people think the US armed Saddam, funny how NONE of his equipt was American.We supported him vs Iran as the lesser of two evils, but did not arm or otherwise equip his forces.

Actually; Britain, France, Germany, the USSR and the United States all supplied weapons to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.

The United States, supplied both sides.
America did not want Iranian victory because it would destabilise the region nor did America want Saddam to win because they feared he would become too powerful and would control too much of Middle Eastern oil.

I have studied history.

Hey kid...the weapons inspectors were kicked out nearly a DOZEN times by Saddam. And you have alot of first hand experience to obtain before you pretend to lecture me on the situation in Iraq.

Hey geezer. When congress gave authority to the President to go to war, Saddam caved and let the inspectors in (this being the purpose of giving him the authority). Then the President decided the inspections were not working (contrary to reports from the inspectors themselves) and initiated the invasion. We warned the inspectors that we were bombing (try again to tell me we didn't kick them out) and started.

I won't, and I don't pretend to lecture you on the situation in Iraq. I'm sure you know a hell of a lot more about what it's like to be an American soldier there than I do. I'm just telling you the way it was.

Understand that I have great respect for those currently serving in our armed forces. My grandfather was a Major General in Vietnam. But you people consistently amaze me with your ability to unearn this respect. You made a factually incorrect statement. Excusable. But when corrected, you tried to back it up with semantics. That is inexcusable. It does not make me want to respect you.

And if that wasn't enough, the "Hey kid" did it for you. There's nothing wrong with being a kid (despite what you adult assholes seem to think). In fact, it gives me a certain amount of satisfaction to think about how much of my life I have ahead of me. But I know - I'm not stupid - that you were actually trying to insult my intelligence, or experience, or something like that. And that's not conducive to a good discussion.


Ah well. I'm not ever sure why I write these rants. Nobody's gonna read 'em anyway. But at least I can feel like I'm communicating.

I understood your gist. My gist was that it is not about being automatic, it is an earned respect as far as the military back to republicans as well. Anyone who takes it as a bad thing to support the troops you send into combat(we do not choose our wars, you all do) really should move imho.(not meaning you, I meant that for those you said might take pro-military as a "bad thing")
this is why i would never consider voting for george bush.
it is his AND OUR duty to make sure that when we send our soldier out to face death, maiming, torture, etc. that its for a GOOD REASON.

our troops have done an amazing job in iraq. i cannot imagine the pressure they are under every day. that they have (for the vast majority of them) treated the iraqi populace with respect and kindness is a testament to just what kind of men and women we have in our country.

but this is a job they shouldnt be doing. our president lied in order to get a frightened populace to agree to invade a country who has never done anythng to us nor, as it turns out, did they have the capability of doing it.

so why have 1100 of our soldiers died and many thousands more been wounded?

yes, junii, saddam hussein was a bad man, and it may be that he would have to be taken out of the picture. thats a judgement that i certainly cant make. but the judgement that i CAN make is that we didnt have to rush to do the job. it was the rushing in, which i can only see as being done because they could manipulate us into it and were concerned that if they waited that we couldnt be, that makes it WRONG.

we had time to convince the rest of the world. we had time to make sure our soldiers had body armor. dont you find it horrifying to think that people were buying body armor and sending it to their loved ones fighting in iraq? i certainly do. we had time to do all sorts of things that werent done because the administration saw a window of opportunity caused by our FEAR.

in the past i had always thought it foolish to put so much stock in having a president who had military experience. now i see that i was wrong. we have a president and his advisors who avoided military service. no i dont count being a party boy in the texas air national guard as military service. (and i dont intend to dis those who do serve in the national guard, i know many who do and im glad they are there). who besides colin powell, who has been cut out of the loop for his disagreeing with policy, have had even as much experience as the president?

well thats my rant for this morning, my sister is waiting for me so we can go do laundry in town. ill get back later to respond to anyone who disagrees with me. i hope i wasnt disrespectful to anyone here, it was not my intent.

OOP, another source on the subject.
http://drudgereport.com/nbcw.htm

Now:
1. Yes drudge is biased. BUT= this article covers both sides.
2. Read it before you bash it, for it goes both ways.
3. OOP, there goes another statement at the bottom.

Thanks, yes, it's been mentioned several times, including by those of us who actually have been on the ground in Iraq at that time, but that fact keeps being glossed over here, of course.

That's cool. Yea all too often stuff gets buried by the fanatical. So, it's always good to restate it as many times as we can. Maybe eventually they will understand and give up. Not that I's expect them to.. ;)

However, other US outlets, including NBC's own news website, quoted Pentagon officials who said a search of the site after the US-led invasion had revealed the explosives to be intact.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3955007.stm

380 tons of explosives gone and in the hands of terrorists. Al-Qaeda being virtually handed a recruitment video by the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq. 1,000+ Americans and their allies dead along with countless Iraqis. Afghanistan being neglected AGAIN allowing for the war lords to take power AGAIN. That little one letter mix up with the country that actually HAD WMD's (Iraq Iran). Wow! The world IS safter now! Viva Bush!

In all fairness, you cannot assume that incompetence is behind the disappearance of the explosives. It is more likely that whom ever removed the explosives from the site was extremely skilled and planned it out in detail in order not to be captured.

Here's an example of what I mean. When a team of Navy Seals extracts a group of POWs (or a powerful WMD, or besiged ambassadors, or any number of other operations they are known for), no one says that they succeeded because their target was incompetent. It's because the Seals are highly trained and meticulous about planning every detail of their operation. Guess what? They're not the only highly trained military force in the world. Al-Qida is beyond a doubt well trained. Not to the caliber of our own Seals, but certainly not to be underestimated.

I find all of these comments interesting. Explosives go missing, People are being killed and it's all the Democrats/Republicans fault. Saddam needed to be taken out of the picture. I may be wrong but the UN Sanctions against him included the fact that he was not to pursue WMD's. Much less have them.


And he didn't have them. Nor has there been any compelling evidence that he was pursuing them again - beside rhetoric.

Even the Weapon Inspectors for the most part admit that they were being led around by Saddam's men. They were told to talk to only certain persons and look in certain buildings and all questions were to go through Saddams men who were leading them around by their noses.


Remember his offering full and unfettered access to all of Iraq by US forces on the eve of war to avoid the invasion? Remember the US violating the very same agreements that they try to hold him to? Like that they would push for a totally WMD-free zone in the Middle East (anyone heard of any efforts to get Israel to get on board with that idea? No? Thought not...), and the fact that sanctions were to to be relaxed in a phased manner during the disarmament process? Madeline Albright made it clear that sanctions would never be relaxed as long as he was in power no matter if he disarmed or not. You think maybe - just maybe - that made it rather pointless for him to keep bending over for you? Maybe pissed him off a bit?

Remember the 2 Missles modified to fly past the range limitations? He wasn't suppose to have them, his exscuse? "oh, We forgot to list them and destroy them." Hmm, they were ready for a payload... and all that poison that was found Ricilin wasn't it? His scientists admitted that they were ordered to create WMD's but didn't because they didn't know where to start? so what, we wait till he actually had them? Wait till he actually attacks American Citizens or our allies? Remember our 'faulty' intelligence was from the same reports that Saddam himself was getting.


Remember his VOLUNTEERING that two of his new generation missiles had exceeded the specified range, but that this had been done in initial tests without full guidance or payload aboard? Remember him asking to crunch all of the test numbers to ensure that - as he believed - a loaded version of that model would NOT exceed the range? Remember the US telling him that they felt that it could (by about 5 miles) and him destroying the missiles as requested?

Wow - that ALMOST sounds like effective diplomacy without the need for invasion...

As to what some of his scientists have been reported to have said - isn't it odd that this is totally contradicted by every single report since the invasion on the actual status of his WMD programs?


Funny how his missles could hit that Kuait shopping mall (which I think, was beyond his missle range limits.)


Oh yes - one air-to-sea missile lobbed across the Hormuz at max-plus effective range to hit such a strategic target as... Target.

Clearly by the way that Kuwait was devestated by his firepower - he was every bit the threat as described...

Funny how defiant he was until the final days of the countdown... then he seemed desparate... like he just found out that he really didn't have the weaopns he wanted.


Funny how you fail to mention his son-in-law's testimony to the UN and other western intelligence sources in the mid-90s after he had defected in which he clearly indicated that he had destroyed all stockpiles under orders.

Funny how Saddam killed that same guy for his treason.

If he were desperate, perhaps it was because his situation was analogous to a huge guy threatening to beat the crap out of you if you don;t hand over you wallet - but you already got mugged two blocks back. As the guy get's more threatening and as you keep showing empty pockets - he keeps claiming that you MUST have a wallet hidden somewhere, and is obviously getting closer and closer to hospitalizing you.

You might just start sweating a bit too.....

Funny that his only reason for invading Kuait in the first place was to remove all evidence of the billions he borrowed from Kuait to fund his military machine... the same he used on Kuait. showing he is willing to use the weapons he got.


Um, his debts to Kuwait were well known. He may have wanted not to have to pay them, but it wasn't a conspiracy to make it apear that they never existed. Nor did he borrow it all from them. Kuwait purchased many of his debts from other neighbouring countries to put the squeeze on him.

Funny how you fail to note that.

Funny how you fail to note his repeated requests to OPEC to ask them to curtail Kuwait's exceeding their export quotas. Funny how you fail to note the evidence that Kuwait may have been drilling laterally into Iraqi oilfields. Funny how you forget to mention that he told Washington of his plans to invade Iraq, and was NOT told to stop.

By simultaenously flooding the oil market to depress prices while putting the squeeze on Saddam with the debts that they had bought up - Kuwait was trying to economically ruin Iraq. Oddly enough, few countries take that kindly...

Which is not to justify the war - just to clear up your bullshit.

As to being "willing to use the weapons he got" - funny how you can use that to denigrate his actions while admiring the fact that GW was more than happy to use "the weapons HE got". Holy hypocrisy Batman! Oh yes - and funny that no WMD were used in Gulf War I.... isn't it?


For those of you who say Saddam wasn't a threat... name the city you want destroyed before you will see the threat Saddam was.


No - please - you name the city. Your best indicator of his threat status is his ability to completely miss a target less than 200Km from his borders and accidentally take out a Kuwaiti shopping mall.

Yeah - that should spread fear into the hearts of people living thousands of miles away...

BTW, my sources are Friends who are retired from the Military (Nameless to protect them.)


Oh gosh - well unnamed sources sure are enough for me! After all, that makes them irrefuteable. All we have are those pesky little things called "facts" on our side....

Who do I blame for the Iraq situation? Saddam, if he wasn't so filled with pride and mistrust, he would still be in power and we wouldn't be there trying to defuse the powder keg known as the Middle East.


Errr - yeah - it's all HIS fault that the US decided to invade.

Naturally.

:rolleyes:

And he didn't have them. Nor has there been any compelling evidence that he was pursuing them again - beside rhetoric.



Remember his offering full and unfettered access to all of Iraq by US forces on the eve of war to avoid the invasion? Remember the US violating the very same agreements that they try to hold him to? Like that they would push for a totally WMD-free zone in the Middle East (anyone heard of any efforts to get Israel to get on board with that idea? No? Thought not...), and the fact that sanctions were to to be relaxed in a phased manner during the disarmament process? Madeline Albright made it clear that sanctions would never be relaxed as long as he was in power no matter if he disarmed or not. You think maybe - just maybe - that made it rather pointless for him to keep bending over for you? Maybe pissed him off a bit?



Remember his VOLUNTEERING that two of his new generation missiles had exceeded the specified range, but that this had been done in initial tests without full guidance or payload aboard? Remember him asking to crunch all of the test numbers to ensure that - as he believed - a loaded version of that model would NOT exceed the range? Remember the US telling him that they felt that it could (by about 5 miles) and him destroying the missiles as requested?

Wow - that ALMOST sounds like effective diplomacy without the need for invasion...

As to what some of his scientists have been reported to have said - isn't it odd that this is totally contradicted by every single report since the invasion on the actual status of his WMD programs?




Oh yes - one air-to-sea missile lobbed across the Hormuz at max-plus effective range to hit such a strategic target as... Target.

Clearly by the way that Kuwait was devestated by his firepower - he was every bit the threat as described...



Funny how you fail to mention his son-in-law's testimony to the UN and other western intelligence sources in the mid-90s after he had defected in which he clearly indicated that he had destroyed all stockpiles under orders.

Funny how Saddam killed that same guy for his treason.

If he were desperate, perhaps it was because his situation was analogous to a huge guy threatening to beat the crap out of you if you don;t hand over you wallet - but you already got mugged two blocks back. As the guy get's more threatening and as you keep showing empty pockets - he keeps claiming that you MUST have a wallet hidden somewhere, and is obviously getting closer and closer to hospitalizing you.

You might just start sweating a bit too.....



Um, his debts to Kuwait were well known. He may have wanted not to have to pay them, but it wasn't a conspiracy to make it apear that they never existed. Nor did he borrow it all from them. Kuwait purchased many of his debts from other neighbouring countries to put the squeeze on him.

Funny how you fail to note that.

Funny how you fail to note his repeated requests to OPEC to ask them to curtail Kuwait's exceeding their export quotas. Funny how you fail to note the evidence that Kuwait may have been drilling laterally into Iraqi oilfields. Funny how you forget to mention that he told Washington of his plans to invade Iraq, and was NOT told to stop.

By simultaenously flooding the oil market to depress prices while putting the squeeze on Saddam with the debts that they had bought up - Kuwait was trying to economically ruin Iraq. Oddly enough, few countries take that kindly...

Which is not to justify the war - just to clear up your bullshit.

As to being "willing to use the weapons he got" - funny how you can use that to denigrate his actions while admiring the fact that GW was more than happy to use "the weapons HE got". Holy hypocrisy Batman! Oh yes - and funny that no WMD were used in Gulf War I.... isn't it?




No - please - you name the city. Your best indicator of his threat status is his ability to completely miss a target less than 200Km from his borders and accidentally take out a Kuwaiti shopping mall.

Yeah - that should spread fear into the hearts of people living thousands of miles away...



Oh gosh - well unnamed sources sure are enough for me! After all, that makes them irrefuteable. All we have are those pesky little things called "facts" on our side....



Errr - yeah - it's all HIS fault that the US decided to invade.

Naturally.

:rolleyes:
Your statements are inaccurate. He did not VOLUNTEER info on the missiles in question, he was caught, denied,then at last admitted, after it was already known, and still only admitted to what WAS known, also refused initially to destroy them,even in an interview on NBC news, then when he thought it would help him, he finally agreed to dismantle the ones THAT WERE FOUND> at the very last moment when he realized there was not alternative.
As for the WMD threat, it has been discussed to oblivion on here and elsewhere. There is plenty of proof he was TRYING to obtain them, and plenty of reason to think he never was able to. By the way, the son in law you mentioned was CIA's primary source that he HAD WMD, the son in law testified to this, not to the fact that he destroyed them.

Hey geezer. When congress gave authority to the President to go to war, Saddam caved and let the inspectors in (this being the purpose of giving him the authority). Then the President decided the inspections were not working (contrary to reports from the inspectors themselves) and initiated the invasion. We warned the inspectors that we were bombing (try again to tell me we didn't kick them out) and started.

I won't, and I don't pretend to lecture you on the situation in Iraq. I'm sure you know a hell of a lot more about what it's like to be an American soldier there than I do. I'm just telling you the way it was.

Understand that I have great respect for those currently serving in our armed forces. My grandfather was a Major General in Vietnam. But you people consistently amaze me with your ability to unearn this respect. You made a factually incorrect statement. Excusable. But when corrected, you tried to back it up with semantics. That is inexcusable. It does not make me want to respect you.

And if that wasn't enough, the "Hey kid" did it for you. There's nothing wrong with being a kid (despite what you adult assholes seem to think). In fact, it gives me a certain amount of satisfaction to think about how much of my life I have ahead of me. But I know - I'm not stupid - that you were actually trying to insult my intelligence, or experience, or something like that. And that's not conducive to a good discussion.


Ah well. I'm not ever sure why I write these rants. Nobody's gonna read 'em anyway. But at least I can feel like I'm communicating.
My statement was a rebuttal to what I read as an attempt to use facts that were inaccurate. I did not play with semantics, a post was made"who ordered the weapons inspectors out" I answered with the only person who ever had ordered them out. Your remark of aiming a high caliber rifle at my head, I assumed implied you were going to tell me some "fact" that you knew,that would rebut me. This was the reason for calling you a kid,that, and to stress the fact that, while there IS nothing wrong with being a kid, you do have an awful lot to learn about the world. I have seen more of the world, and I have seen what it ACTUALLY is like there in Iraq, and it galls me to hear someone who gets their "news"from sources with an agenda.
Nevertheless,my statement was harsh, and I apologize. I was NOT insulting your intelligence, mostly I think you should open your mind and eyes, and pay attention. By your posts, you actually do sound intelligent, use it.

Your statements are inaccurate. He did not VOLUNTEER info on the missiles in question, he was caught, denied,then at last admitted, after it was already known, and still only admitted to what WAS known, also refused initially to destroy them,even in an interview on NBC news, then when he thought it would help him, he finally agreed to dismantle the ones THAT WERE FOUND> at the very last moment when he realized there was not alternative.
As for the WMD threat, it has been discussed to oblivion on here and elsewhere. There is plenty of proof he was TRYING to obtain them, and plenty of reason to think he never was able to. By the way, the son in law you mentioned was CIA's primary source that he HAD WMD, the son in law testified to this, not to the fact that he destroyed them.


Bullshit!:

From the guardian: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,905369,00.html)


Hussein Kamel, the former head of Iraq's weapons programmes whose 1995 defection has been portrayed by the US and Britain as evidence of Iraqi deceit and the futility of inspections, was a "consummate liar", according to the last weapons inspector to interrogate him.
The transcript of the interrogation, leaked this week to Newsweek magazine and seen by the Guardian, makes it clear that the defector's testimony on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was inconclusive and often misleading.

The emergence of the classified statements weakens the case the US and Britain has tried to build against Saddam Hussein, in which Kamel's defection has been used to bolster claims that Iraq still has thousands of tonnes of chemical and biological weapons for which it has not accounted.

They reveal that Kamel, who was President Saddam's son-in-law, told UN inspectors that Iraq had destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons and abandoned its nuclear programme after the Gulf war. But he said blueprints, documents, computer files and moulds for missile parts had been hidden.

Rolf Ekeus, the former chief UN weapons inspector who oversaw the interrogation in August 1995, said much of the chemical arsenal had been destroyed by the inspectors, not Baghdad.

...

Kamel, who had been the director of Iraq's military industrial establishment, was assassinated soon after his mysterious decision to return to Iraq just weeks after his high-profile defection.


He testified that they were all gone. He was used as a source by the Administration, but only with edited portions of his testimony. If you don't like the Guardian, try Googling "kamel weapons destroyed" and enjoy the 17K+ hits it returns. Feel free to find one from a source you do trust....

Oh yes - and you can read his full testimony right here (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdf)


As to the Al Samoud II's, as Fox News (with their "Fairly unbalanced" or some such Republican ass-kissing motto ) recalls: (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C79171%2C00.html)


In its semiannual report to U.N. inspectors in October, and again in its 12,000-page weapons declaration on Dec. 7, Iraq declared that 13 of the 40 tests of the Al Samoud 2 had gone beyond the 93-mile limit.

Last week, Blix told the Security Council that a panel of international experts he invited to study the missile issue concluded that the Al Samoud 2 exceeds the limit.

...

Iraq maintains that some Al Samouds traveled beyond the limit because they were tested without warheads or guidance systems, which made them lighter.

Al-Douri reiterated Thursday that Iraq wants U.N. technical experts to come to Iraq "to see that these missiles cannot exceed in any way 150 kilometers, and not to limit themselves to a written paper, a theoretical report."



That would be Iraq's regular semiannual report as mandated under sanctions with the full discolsure of the test results included. And that would be the disagreement on the actual range of a loaded missile that led to the destruction when the UN/US refused to waver on it. Now - you can pretend to be suprised that somebody was pissed off at being told to destroy something valuable that was questionably marginally in violation of the sanctions if you like. But it sure as hell didn't suprise me.


Oh yes - he was "caught" giving full and precise information on test results as required under the UN resolutions.... damn him to hell for being.... honest.

:rolleyes:

And, as I mentioned before - it was indicitive of how the US/UN could impose their will upon Iraq through diplomacy without the need to waste hundred of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives in a poorly planned invasion that did more to destabiliz the region and promote anti-western sentiment than any other single act in the past 30 years.

The War on Iraq was an illegal coup, end of story.

Bullshit!:

From the guardian: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,905369,00.html)



He testified that they were all gone. He was used as a source by the Administration, but only with edited portions of his testimony. If you don't like the Guardian, try Googling "kamel weapons destroyed" and enjoy the 17K+ hits it returns. Feel free to find one from a source you do trust....

Oh yes - and you can read his full testimony right here (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdf)


As to the Al Samoud II's, as Fox News (with their "Fairly unbalanced" or some such Republican ass-kissing motto ) recalls: (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C79171%2C00.html)



That would be Iraq's regular semiannual report as mandated under sanctions with the full discolsure of the test results included. And that would be the disagreement on the actual range of a loaded missile that led to the destruction when the UN/US refused to waver on it. Now - you can pretend to be suprised that somebody was pissed off at being told to destroy something valuable that was questionably marginally in violation of the sanctions if you like. But it sure as hell didn't suprise me.


Oh yes - he was "caught" giving full and precise information on test results as required under the UN resolutions.... damn him to hell for being.... honest.

:rolleyes:

And, as I mentioned before - it was indicitive of how the US/UN could impose their will upon Iraq through diplomacy without the need to waste hundred of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives in a poorly planned invasion that did more to destabiliz the region and promote anti-western sentiment than any other single act in the past 30 years.
It is hilarious that you quoted the weapons inspectors as calling him a consumate liar, right before yourself quoting him. Yes, his information was false, the reason they called him a consumate liar?because he gave sworn testimony also that Iraq HAD nuclear arms. He played both sides, a flip flop.
His information was also part of what was used to brief the congressional intelligence committees prior to authorization of war.Kerry also voted "aye' for the authorization, apparently he found it convincing as well.
You totally 100% missed my point, which was NOT that there were WMD, it was that this man was CIA's source for claiming such.

Zeppistan,
Also if you want to get technical, we found artillery shells containing sarin gas. Also there were 30 THOUSAND gallons of UNACCOUNTED for VX nerve agent and sarin gas. This was accounted for by simply saying"we destroyed it" and while that may be so, given his past record, it is hardly a wonder he was not believed.

Actually; Britain, France, Germany, the USSR and the United States all supplied weapons to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.

The United States, supplied both sides.
America did not want Iranian victory because it would destabilise the region nor did America want Saddam to win because they feared he would become too powerful and would control too much of Middle Eastern oil.

I have studied history.

If you studied that in history, the part of supplying is inaccurate, and your teacher should be fired. As far as suppporting him, yes, you are right, we indirectly supported him, gave him intelligence, etc.
The arms that armed his army and air force in the first gulf war
T-72 MBT- Soviet
MiG fighters-Soviet
Mirage fighter/attack a/c- French
AK-74/47 Soviet
SA-6 Air defense system-soviet
Roland Air defense-French
Soviet and French helos various
BTR BMP and BDR APC/IFV- Soviet
AT-4 Fagot ATGM-Soviet
and the list goes on.
The Iraqi Freedom Operation was more of the same.
So you are saying he lost EVERY SINGLE piece of military equiptment supplied by Britain and the US in the Iran Iraq war, to a 3rd rate military?

It is hilarious that you quoted the weapons inspectors as calling him a consumate liar, right before yourself quoting him. Yes, his information was false, the reason they called him a consumate liar?because he gave sworn testimony also that Iraq HAD nuclear arms. He played both sides, a flip flop.
His information was also part of what was used to brief the congressional intelligence committees prior to authorization of war.Kerry also voted "aye' for the authorization, apparently he found it convincing as well.
You totally 100% missed my point, which was NOT that there were WMD, it was that this man was CIA's source for claiming such.

No YOU totally missed the point, and completely fail to look at the date that the story was filed on. This man WAS sourced by the CIA for his admissions as to what Saddam had acquired in the way of WMD. What they conveniently tried not to also include in their analysis was his follow-up statements that these weapons had been destroyed. When the question was raised about that portion of his testimony - there was the attempt to discredit only that portion of his statements where he claimed that they had been destroyed.

It's called "cherry-picking", and it was fatuous of the CIA and Whithouse to use his statements about the weapons programs that HAD existed as iron-clad, reputable "proof", while trying to slough off his statements about their destruction as being the statements of a "consumate liar".

The idiocy being that if he WERE a consumate liar, then using the parts of his testimony that they wanted to should also have been tossed out.

It's called hypocricy, smoke 'n mirrors, or whatever other description of logical dishonesty you care to name.



Oh yeah - and as we all now know, turns out he was telling the truth right down the line wasn't he?



You can call his assertions false if you like - and some uneducated people might even believe you - if they never read the Dulfer report that backs up every single claim that Kamel made.......

No YOU totally missed the point, and completely fail to look at the date that the story was filed on. This man WAS sourced by the CIA for his admissions as to what Saddam had acquired in the way of WMD. What they conveniently tried not to also include in their analysis was his follow-up statements that these weapons had been destroyed. When the question was raised about that portion of his testimony - there was the attempt to discredit only that portion of his statements where he claimed that they had been destroyed.

It's called "cherry-picking", and it was fatuous of the CIA and Whithouse to use his statements about the weapons programs that HAD existed as iron-clad, reputable "proof", while trying to slough off his statements about their destruction as being the statements of a "consumate liar".

The idiocy being that if he WERE a consumate liar, then using the parts of his testimony that they wanted to should also have been tossed out.

It's called hypocricy, smoke 'n mirrors, or whatever other description of logical dishonesty you care to name.



Oh yeah - and as we all now know, turns out he was telling the truth right down the line wasn't he?



You can call his assertions false if you like - and some uneducated people might even believe you - if they never read the Dulfer report that backs up every single claim that Kamel made.......
His report to the CIA came during Clinton's tenure, as I am sure you are aware of.It is nothing to do with the "white house" as the entire administration has been replaced since then,the only connection was that Clinton's appointed head of the CIA was still in office when this was going on prior to the Iraq invasion. Again, you still quote him as being truthful,while using quotes from the weapons inspectors calling him a consummate liar.
I am of the opinion for the record he was a liar, the program of WMD was no where near as far as he stated when he told the Clinton CIA that Iraq would have a working nuclear warhead by 1999 at the earliest, 2005 at the latest.
You on the other hand, cannot say the UN weapons inspectors were inaccurate in THEIR calling him a liar, while at the same time, saying that he told the truth. Especially since your whole premise is that the UN inspections would have worked. How can they work if even their inspectors call a person who you take his word as gospel, a consummate liar?
As for educated people believing or not, I am quite educated myself, in classroom, as well as in the world, as well as on the ground in the country we are talking about.
And again, lest you miss this, allow me to take you back to your original post, it was NOT the CIA and Whitehouse, as you claim in this post, trying to discredit him, it was the UN weapons inspectors, whom you quoted as calling him a consummate liar.

Zeppistan,
Also if you want to get technical, we found artillery shells containing sarin gas. Also there were 30 THOUSAND gallons of UNACCOUNTED for VX nerve agent and sarin gas. This was accounted for by simply saying"we destroyed it" and while that may be so, given his past record, it is hardly a wonder he was not believed.


YEs, a couple of leftover old artillery shells with long-spoiled remenants of such chemicals were found. The few such shells found were in individual lots rather than any sort of major cache, and were all Iran-IRaq war vintage.


In a related story,every year vintage WWII shells of various sizes, shapes, and nationalities are discovered all over europe during excavations, farm plowing, garden digging, etc.

In war - inventory processes are not always strictly maintained when your unit is getting overrun by a human wave of the opposition.


Extending that fully understandable situation to some sort of indication of nefarious complicity whereby Saddam deliberately withheld a handfull of rusty antiques containing worthless, slightly-toxic goop is laughable.

And to convict a person of this crime, you need to prove intent. This does not do that.

Zeppistan,
I just re-read your original post. I am open minded, and quite willing to listen to reason, despite how I may seem at times. However, your whole story, from the Guardian, is actually talking about the UN proving Hamel WRONG.
Nowhere do I see how you can cite that as reference to your statement that he told the truth. Perhaps even after reading it 6 times now, I am missing something, it has happened before, but if so, show me.

YEs, a couple of leftover old artillery shells with long-spoiled remenants of such chemicals were found. The few such shells found were in individual lots rather than any sort of major cache, and were all Iran-IRaq war vintage.


In a related story,every year vintage WWII shells of various sizes, shapes, and nationalities are discovered all over europe during excavations, farm plowing, garden digging, etc.

In war - inventory processes are not always strictly maintained when your unit is getting overrun by a human wave of the opposition.


Extending that fully understandable situation to some sort of indication of nefarious complicity whereby Saddam deliberately withheld a handfull of rusty antiques containing worthless, slightly-toxic goop is laughable.

And to convict a person of this crime, you need to prove intent. This does not do that.
Also is curious why Iraqi troops we encountered had Chemical protective gear. It is known fact the US has no chemical weapons, it is also fact they are extremely uncomfortable to wear, and few soldiers would voluntarily carry this gear to combat ,especially in a situation where there was no threat, unless perhaps they themselves were the threat.

His report to the CIA came during Clinton's tenure, as I am sure you are aware of.It is nothing to do with the "white house" as the entire administration has been replaced since then,the only connection was that Clinton's appointed head of the CIA was still in office when this was going on prior to the Iraq invasion. Again, you still quote him as being truthful,while using quotes from the weapons inspectors calling him a consummate liar.
I am of the opinion for the record he was a liar, the program of WMD was no where near as far as he stated when he told the Clinton CIA that Iraq would have a working nuclear warhead by 1999 at the earliest, 2005 at the latest.
You on the other hand, cannot say the UN weapons inspectors were inaccurate in THEIR calling him a liar, while at the same time, saying that he told the truth. Especially since your whole premise is that the UN inspections would have worked. How can they work if even their inspectors call a person who you take his word as gospel, a consummate liar?
As for educated people believing or not, I am quite educated myself, in classroom, as well as in the world, as well as on the ground in the country we are talking about.
And again, lest you miss this, allow me to take you back to your original post, it was NOT the CIA and Whitehouse, as you claim in this post, trying to discredit him, it was the UN weapons inspectors, whom you quoted as calling him a consummate liar.


First, newsflash - the UN inspections DID work. No WMD.

Now second, the fact that I sourced ONE article to back up my assertion does not mean that this is the holy grail of all relvant info on this subject. Please do not treat it as such.

Some other quotes you can go find for yourself regarding Kamel

US Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his speech to the UN Security Council on the case for war, claimed:

“It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX. A single drop of VX on the skin will kill in minutes. Four tons. The admission only came out after inspectors collected documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein’s late son-in-law.”


In a speech in October '02, President Bush declared:

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq’s military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 litres of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq has likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.”


When the story first broke that Kamel had also stated that these weapons had been since destroyed, the CIA put out a statement by spokesman Bill Harlow who bluntly asserted: “It is incorrect, bogus, wrong, untrue.” And a British government source told Reuters: “We’ve checked back and he [Kamel] didn’t say this. He said the opposite, that the WMD program was alive and kicking.”


So - they used him as proof when it suited their purposes, at first denied that he had claimed that the weapons had been destroyed, and then after there was some attempts to discredit those claims by him while still retaining his statements about the initial production as part of their case to go to war. Talk about having your cake and eating it too! Either he was credible, or he wasn't. This administration tried to have it both ways, as are you. The fact that somebody once called him a consumate liar in the course of political posturing is immaterial. The better question is "was he actually lying?", and it seems that on most important issues - he was not.

Oh yes - and who he testified to initially is frickin' irrelevant. IT was up to the current CIA staff and Administration to evaluate the testimony and decide what to make of it as far as "proof" goes if they wanted to use it as part of their case for war.



Incidentally, the person that busted the Brits on their false claims that Kamel had not stated that the weapons were destroyed was the same professor who also busted them for plagerizing a student's thesis as their supposed "intelligence document" on Iraq.

You STILL are missing the point. You brought in evidence that the UN, NOT the white house, NOT the CIA, had totally discredited this man, who then you proceed to say told the total truth. In so doing, you are doing the same thing you accuse the administration of, you are cherry picking.
In the Guardian story which you were only too glad to use, they being the leftist mantra of Europe, you quoted UN weapons inspectors who had totally(according to them)discredited this man. The same UN who you obviously hold in high regard. You cannot have it both ways, either the UN weapons inspectors, themselves, were inaccurate, and Hamel had told the total truth(as you state) ,in which case who can believe anything else these inspectors said also, or else, the UN was right, Hamel was lying, and you are wrong in saying he was totally truthful. So, which is it?

You STILL are missing the point. You brought in evidence that the UN, NOT the white house, NOT the CIA, had totally discredited this man, who then you proceed to say told the total truth. In so doing, you are doing the same thing you accuse the administration of, you are cherry picking.
In the Guardian story which you were only too glad to use, they being the leftist mantra of Europe, you quoted UN weapons inspectors who had totally(according to them)discredited this man. The same UN who you obviously hold in high regard. You cannot have it both ways, either the UN weapons inspectors, themselves, were inaccurate, and Hamel had told the total truth(as you state) ,in which case who can believe anything else these inspectors said also, or else, the UN was right, Hamel was lying, and you are wrong in saying he was totally truthful. So, which is it?


Ummm, actually, if you read the article it clearly states that the UN corroberated much of what he told them through other sources.

e.g.)
Rolf Ekeus, the former chief UN weapons inspector who oversaw the interrogation in August 1995, said much of the chemical arsenal had been destroyed by the inspectors, not Baghdad.


Well - arguing about WHO destroyed every bit is pointless, and is not an indication of the truth or misstuth about whether they had all been destroyed as KAmel claimed.

Mr Ekeus agreed that the Iraqi government had probably eliminated its biological arsenal but said he remained convinced that "seed stocks" of bacteria had been retained as well as growth media and fermenters so it could quickly reconstitute its arsenal.


Mr Ekeus supports Kamel, he just wants prof about the seed stocks that KAmel was unable to give him.

The US and British governments have pointed to the defection to emphasise the extent of Iraq's weapons programmes and the inherent weakness of inspections.


Pointing to someone who says that they are all destroyed? Oh right - they forgot to mention that little tidbit at first....

But Mr Ekeus pointed out that Unscom, the UN special commission on Iraq, had already discovered a lot about the Iraqi pre-war biological programme earlier that year, forcing Baghdad's admission in July, a month before Kamel's defection, that it had pursued germ warfare.


Again, Mt Ekeus supporting the statements by Kamel - just taking credit for them in an "oh - we allready knew that" sort of way.

Mr Ekeus DID call him a liar, but also agreed that they had verified most of what he had said.

The CIA and British Goverment claimed that Kamel NEVER SAID THAT THE WEAPONS WERE DESTROYED.


So - who's the liar?

i vote this thread be closed, arguing with a talking brick wall is still arguing with a brick wall

Also is curious why Iraqi troops we encountered had Chemical protective gear. It is known fact the US has no chemical weapons, it is also fact they are extremely uncomfortable to wear, and few soldiers would voluntarily carry this gear to combat ,especially in a situation where there was no threat, unless perhaps they themselves were the threat.


The US has no chemical weapons?

BULLSHIT! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/788206.stm)


The US has not used chemical weapons in an offensive manner for a long while (excluding napalm - if you count that), and they have signed a treaty to do away with them, but they DO have chemical weapons. Tons of them. And treaties are meant to be broken.....



Now, if you were an Iraqi and you were not sure who to believe about whether or not there were going to be WMD floating around FROM EITHER SIDE (propoganda in a dictatorship CAN be effective after all), and you had access to a chemical suit...... would you wear it?




I would!




Did anyone fire chemical weapons?


Thankfully - for your sake - no.

In response to the 380 tons of explosives that went missing in Iraq

hahaha.... the liberals scare tactics (they'll do anything to get a vote) (Ain't it funny they just happen to find this 8 days before the election??

I don't know if any of you all know this or not, but this is old news. Old as in (19 months old)! It's funny that no where is it mentioned when they went missing either. It's funny how they can turn this old news and repackage it as a new story that was just discovered yesterday. You people are so gulliable!!

I mean isn't this the reason why we went over there in the first place. Wasn't it you liberals who denied them having this stuff also?

The US has no chemical weapons?

BULLSHIT! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/788206.stm)


The US has not used chemical weapons in an offensive manner for a long while (excluding napalm - if you count that), and they have signed a treaty to do away with them, but they DO have chemical weapons. Tons of them. And treaties are meant to be broken.....



Now, if you were an Iraqi and you were not sure who to believe about whether or not there were going to be WMD floating around FROM EITHER SIDE (propoganda in a dictatorship CAN be effective after all), and you had access to a chemical suit...... would you wear it?




I would!




Did anyone fire chemical weapons?


Thankfully - for your sake - no.
The US has had, for years, no chemical weapons. It is for this reason that it is known, stated US policy, that an attack using one form of WMD is considered as a nuclear attack, of which we retain plenty, and suits will not help.
For the rest, Yes, the slippery UN inspector actually verified part of his story while calling him a liar.
Also, probably napalm would count as some sort of special weapon, it is not chemical, and suits will not help there much either.
Anyhow, I enjoyed the debate, no hard feelings. I have a mountain of work on a thesis to finish, and have been wasting enough time on here, nothing personal :) Just the mountain is not shrinking fast enough.

In response to the 380 tons of explosives that went missing in Iraq

hahaha.... the liberals scare tactics (they'll do anything to get a vote) (Ain't it funny they just happen to find this 8 days before the election??

I don't know if any of you all know this or not, but this is old news. Old as in (19 months old)! It's funny that no where is it mentioned when they went missing either. It's funny how they can turn this old news and repackage it as a new story that was just discovered yesterday. You people are so gulliable!!

I mean isn't this the reason why we went over there in the first place. Wasn't it you liberals who denied them having this stuff also?
Yes it was mentioned many times in this thread. Soldiers going over there were told last spring.(03) And yes, the timing of the "news" is pure unadulterated BS. But that is pretty much all going to be moot next week anyway. I can't wait.

The US has had, for years, no chemical weapons. It is for this reason that it is known, stated US policy, that an attack using one form of WMD is considered as a nuclear attack, of which we retain plenty, and suits will not help.
For the rest, Yes, the slippery UN inspector actually verified part of his story while calling him a liar.
Also, probably napalm would count as some sort of special weapon, it is not chemical, and suits will not help there much either.
Anyhow, I enjoyed the debate, no hard feelings. I have a mountain of work on a thesis to finish, and have been wasting enough time on here, nothing personal :) Just the mountain is not shrinking fast enough.
Aw hell I have all night for the schoolwork, lets keep talking. Pizza anyone?

The US has no chemical weapons?

BULLSHIT! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/788206.stm)


4 year old crap that is now in the birdcage.

In response to the 380 tons of explosives that went missing in Iraq

hahaha.... the liberals scare tactics (they'll do anything to get a vote) (Ain't it funny they just happen to find this 8 days before the election??

I don't know if any of you all know this or not, but this is old news. Old as in (19 months old)! It's funny that no where is it mentioned when they went missing either. It's funny how they can turn this old news and repackage it as a new story that was just discovered yesterday. You people are so gulliable!!

I mean isn't this the reason why we went over there in the first place. Wasn't it you liberals who denied them having this stuff also?

Wow, I think we all are less intelligent for having read this.

First, this is not old news. The event it indicates are perhaps in the past, but it was just recently that these events have come to light, because of the reports to and from the Iraqi governing council.

I also ask, for example, if you would have been so skeptical if the Bush administration "suddenly" found Osama Bin Laden right before the election, or are you just a partisan hack? I'm sure the right would be hailing this as a personal victory for Bush, instead of saying, "well it was the soldiers who got Osama, Bush really can't take credit."

As for the reason for us being over there? You mean you believe that Bush let chemical, biological or nuclear materials get in to the hands of the insurgents? Oh, perhaps you are talking about the large amount of (listen carefully and wipe the drool off your chin,) CONVENTIONAL explosives that have gone missing?

Granted, we do not know at this point exactly when they went missing. The fact is, if Bush had bothered to make a truly international coalition and allowed the number of troops we actually needed to go to Iraq, sites like this could have been guarded. If we had had more cooperation witgh the UN, places like this might never have had a lapse in protection at all.

Report: Explosives could not be found when U.S. troops arrived
NBC News says its crew was embedded with soldiers at time
Tuesday, October 26, 2004 Posted: 11:16 AM EDT (1516 GMT)


Officials fear the missing explosives could be used in bombings like those occurring regularly in Iraq.


(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 television news crew embedded with the U.S. military during the invasion of Iraq reported that the material could not be found when 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.

from the Commmunist News Network. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives/index.html)

If we had had more cooperation witgh the UN, places like this might never have had a lapse in protection at all.
We had the cooperation of the UN up until it was time to put up or shut up. Sanction after sanction from the Security Council, Resolution 1441 specifically stating "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." I guess the UN decided to shut up.

In response to the 380 tons of explosives that went missing in Iraq

hahaha.... the liberals scare tactics (they'll do anything to get a vote) (Ain't it funny they just happen to find this 8 days before the election??

I don't know if any of you all know this or not, but this is old news. Old as in (19 months old)! It's funny that no where is it mentioned when they went missing either. It's funny how they can turn this old news and repackage it as a new story that was just discovered yesterday. You people are so gulliable!!

I mean isn't this the reason why we went over there in the first place. Wasn't it you liberals who denied them having this stuff also?
tis new news when its released to the public. i dont care if its just been declassified after 15 years, its news to us, to quote the ass

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/nytrogate.html

Watch the video. Good stuff.

We had the cooperation of the UN up until it was time to put up or shut up. Sanction after sanction from the Security Council, Resolution 1441 specifically stating "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." I guess the UN decided to shut up.

Yes, but what was Saddam in violation of? Having WMD's? I referr you to the Dulfur report.

Yes, but what was Saddam in violation of? Having WMD's? I referr you to the Dulfur report.
Of all the previous resolutions passed by the UN security Council. Please don't play the he never had WMDs and Bush lied card, nearly every intelligence in the world thought there were WMDs. Some day down the road, we'll find out what happened to them, if they are still hidden in Iraq, or if they were shipped out before the war.

Of all the previous resolutions passed by the UN security Council. Please don't play the he never had WMDs and Bush lied card, nearly every intelligence in the world thought there were WMDs. Some day down the road, we'll find out what happened to them, if they are still hidden in Iraq, or if they were shipped out before the war.
Kind of like the explosives that are in the headlines right now.

Of all the previous resolutions passed by the UN security Council. Please don't play the he never had WMDs and Bush lied card, nearly every intelligence in the world thought there were WMDs. Some day down the road, we'll find out what happened to them, if they are still hidden in Iraq, or if they were shipped out before the war.

I never said he never had WMD, don't try to play that game.

Several countries had serious doubts about the presence of WMD. The Niger uranium, Atta in Prague, and the aluminum tube stories were refuted even before the U.S. made their Iraq war case. Quit trying to remake history.

Shhh, the liberals still think that Iraq was not trying to get yellowcake uranium from Africa.

"Italian diplomats say that France was behind forged documents which at first appeared to prove that Iraq was seeking "yellow-cake" uranium in Niger - evidence used by Britain and America to promote the case for last year's Gulf war.

They say that France's intelligence services used an Italian-born middle-man to circulate a mixture of genuine and bogus documents to "trap" the two leading proponents of war with Saddam into making unsupportable claims.

They have passed to The Sunday Telegraph a photograph which they claim shows the Italian go-between, sometimes known as "Giacomo" - who cannot be identified for legal reasons - meeting a senior French intelligence officer based in Brussels. "The French hoped that the bulk of the documents would be exposed as false, since many of them obviously were," an Italian official said.

"Their aim was to make the allies look ridiculous in order to undermine their case for war.""

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wuran05.xml

How can anyone leave 380 tons of explosives unguarded?
You oughta ask the UN and the IAEA, as they were the ones in charge of guarding and verifying that Saddam did not possess these materials prior to the invasion in March 2003. After all, the explosives were already gone when the American troops got there...

You oughta ask the UN and the IAEA, as they were the ones in charge of guarding and verifying that Saddam did not possess these materials prior to the invasion in March 2003. After all, the explosives were already gone when the American troops got there...

:rolleyes: http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=6&aid=D85VD81G1_story

All we know is that we don't know if the explosives were there when American troops got there. Why? Because they were only told to look for WMD (once again, nuclear, chemical, or biological.)

Part of the story is missing here-

The last time the explosives were seen was when the International Atomic Energy Agency inventoried them in January 2003-- that's the last time they were seen by th outisde world. The explosives went missing before American forces arrived.

So, now you liberals are criticisizing Bush for losing the WMDs that supposedly never existed?

Boy, I'll tell ya...

Shhh, the liberals still think that Iraq was not trying to get yellowcake uranium from Africa.

"Italian diplomats say that France was behind forged documents which at first appeared to prove that Iraq was seeking "yellow-cake" uranium in Niger - evidence used by Britain and America to promote the case for last year's Gulf war.

They say that France's intelligence services used an Italian-born middle-man to circulate a mixture of genuine and bogus documents to "trap" the two leading proponents of war with Saddam into making unsupportable claims.

They have passed to The Sunday Telegraph a photograph which they claim shows the Italian go-between, sometimes known as "Giacomo" - who cannot be identified for legal reasons - meeting a senior French intelligence officer based in Brussels. "The French hoped that the bulk of the documents would be exposed as false, since many of them obviously were," an Italian official said.

"Their aim was to make the allies look ridiculous in order to undermine their case for war.""

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wuran05.xml

Wait. Let me get this straight. If France forged the documents, it means that Iraq actually was trying to secure uranium from Niger? The article show no proof that the Niger claims were real in any way.

Part of the story is missing here-

The last time the explosives were seen was when the International Atomic Energy Agency inventoried them in January 2003-- that's the last time they were seen by th outisde world. The explosives went missing before American forces arrived.

So, now you liberals are criticisizing Bush for losing the WMDs that supposedly never existed?

Boy, I'll tell ya...

WE DON'T KNOW when the explosives went missing, that's the whole problem.

"British officials still say that the claim about Iraqi uranium purchases rested on a second source, not just the now-discredited documents"

ROFL, the liberals AND Condaleeza Rice think that. Someone get munkebrain up to speed with the offcial, everchanging, Whitehouse version of the story. Of course we know that seeing administration officials making these statements on camera, on tape is not enough, but munk should at least try.

"British officials still say that the claim about Iraqi uranium purchases rested on a second source, not just the now-discredited documents"

Fine. Find me an article that shows that these documents make a definitive case. If they were not enough to stand on their own, then they are still not enough to stand on their own.

Of all the previous resolutions passed by the UN security Council. Please don't play the he never had WMDs and Bush lied card, nearly every intelligence in the world thought there were WMDs. Some day down the road, we'll find out what happened to them, if they are still hidden in Iraq, or if they were shipped out before the war.
The air goes out of your argument like a suddenly released balloon when you consider the fact that the UN inspectors had to leave Iraq (despite the great job they were doing), because Bush stated that the US was going to invade Iraq regardless.

By invading Iraq, the aforementioned cache of munitions that had been sealed and tagged by UN forces went missing due to mismanagement by the Bush administration.

Also by invading Iraq, the US violated the UN Charter and also violated Resolution 1441.

Also by invading Iraq, terrorism has increased, and the US has lost a lot of international support.

Quit making excuses for a failed foreign policy. :eek:

Also is curious why Iraqi troops we encountered had Chemical protective gear. It is known fact the US has no chemical weapons, it is also fact they are extremely uncomfortable to wear, and few soldiers would voluntarily carry this gear to combat ,especially in a situation where there was no threat, unless perhaps they themselves were the threat.What? Are you saying the United States military does not have a chemical munition card up it's sleeve?

Perpsective, people, perspective.

Iraq had 600000 tons - that's six hundred thousand - of ammunition sitting around at the time we invaded. According to some former Iraqi generals, 100000 tons were specifically hidden in small caches for the anticipated guerilla resistance in just one province (Al Anbar), and lots more around the country. We have collected and secured about 150000 tons and disposed of (i.e. safely exploded) probably around 200000. Now 380 tons have gone missing? Who gives a flying bleep. It's a drop in the bucket.

Regarding these being especially powerful: they aren't. A little big of Googling finds out all you need to know. Lockebrie was blown up using Semtex, the reported missing explosives contain a component of Semtex - namely RDX - which is about twice as powerful as TNT. Big freaking deal, a lot of common military explosives are even more powerful. The only reason why Semtex is a terrorist favourite is because it is harder for dogs to sniff out.

But the best part is this... these explosives were gone before we even freaking got there! A unit of the 3ID on its way to Baghdad stopped at the Al Qaqaa depot, and looked for the explosives which they knew should be there since they were being tracked by the IAEA. They didn't find them. Under the circumstances it wasn't possible to leave a picket, so they continued on. The 101st secured the installation a week later, and still these explosives were nowhere to be found. People are doing some serious investigative research on this, so the real story will come out.

http://instapundit.com/archives/018652.php
http://instapundit.com/archives/018675.php
http://instapundit.com/archives/018668.php

But perhaps the real story is the delaying tactics of the UN and EU that gave Saddam enough time to hide, disperse and ship to Syria a lot of the stuff we were after? (as in, thousands of trucks going into Syria tracked by satellite) Or the way the EU pressured Turkey to prevent them from giving us a staging area for the 4ID?


* by the way, if you have trouble picturing 600000 tons of explosives... picture ten football fields heaped three stories high.

Perpsective, people, perspective.

Iraq had 600000 tons - that's six hundred thousand - of ammunition sitting around at the time we invaded. According to some former Iraqi generals, 100000 tons were specifically hidden in small caches for the anticipated guerilla resistance in just one province (Al Anbar), and lots more around the country. We have collected and secured about 150000 tons and disposed of (i.e. safely exploded) probably around 200000. Now 380 tons have gone missing? Who gives a flying bleep. It's a drop in the bucket.

Regarding these being especially powerful: they aren't. A little big of Googling finds out all you need to know. Lockebrie was blown up using Semtex, the reported missing explosives contain a component of Semtex - namely RDX - which is about twice as powerful as TNT. Big freaking deal, a lot of common military explosives are even more powerful. The only reason why Semtex is a terrorist favourite is because it is harder for dogs to sniff out.

But the best part is this... these explosives were gone before we even freaking got there! A unit of the 3ID on its way to Baghdad stopped at the Al Qaqaa depot, and looked for the explosives which they knew should be there since they were being tracked by the IAEA. They didn't find them. Under the circumstances it wasn't possible to leave a picket, so they continued on. The 101st secured the installation a week later, and still these explosives were nowhere to be found. People are doing some serious investigative research on this, so the real story will come out.

http://instapundit.com/archives/018652.php
http://instapundit.com/archives/018675.php
http://instapundit.com/archives/018668.php

But perhaps the real story is the delaying tactics of the UN and EU that gave Saddam enough time to hide, disperse and ship to Syria a lot of the stuff we were after? (as in, thousands of trucks going into Syria tracked by satellite) Or the way the EU pressured Turkey to prevent them from giving us a staging area for the 4ID?


* by the way, if you have trouble picturing 600000 tons of explosives... picture ten football fields heaped three stories high.
Oh great, a bunch of unsubstantiated stories on a pro Bush web site. :eek:

Actually we do know they were taken since the American invasion. How do we know this? Because they were all being protected by the UN inspectors and other UN related agencies up and until that point.

LOL!!! This is the same UN that was involved in the Food for Oil scandal right?

This is the kind of logic that makes my head hurt. So, you're saying that because 380 tons of explosives only make up a small percentage of what was available, that their loss is unimportant? Would you be so cavalier if say, only one of our nuclear warheads was missing? We have thousands more, so who cares about one warhead, right?

Also, the newest reports I've seen say that when we arrived in Al Qaqaa, the soldiers only searched for specific WMD. The Whitehouse and Pentagon even say directly that there is a 6 week window after the war began that the explosives could have been removed. If they had concluded that they were missing before April 10th, why are they STILL saying that they don't know? Unbelievable.

Might I also add that Saddam never seemed to have a problem securing these sites. Did 380 tons of explosives ever go missing on his watch? Are we not supposed to be more capable than Saddam?

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=7&aid=D85VF9880_story

See, they weren't even looking for conventional explosives.

LOL!!! This is the same UN that was involved in the Food for Oil scandal right?

Yes. And this is the same Bush administration that said there were WMD in Iraq, and who said Saddam was connected to 9/11.

Now that that is out of the way, do you care to comment on the subject at hand, or do you only have hysterical blame to throw around?

What? Are you saying the United States military does not have a chemical munition card up it's sleeve?
You stated earlier you were/are in the 1st AD. I assume you know this as well.

Wow, I think we all are less intelligent for having read this.

First, this is not old news. The event it indicates are perhaps in the past, but it was just recently that these events have come to light, because of the reports to and from the Iraqi governing council.

I also ask, for example, if you would have been so skeptical if the Bush administration "suddenly" found Osama Bin Laden right before the election, or are you just a partisan hack? I'm sure the right would be hailing this as a personal victory for Bush, instead of saying, "well it was the soldiers who got Osama, Bush really can't take credit."

As for the reason for us being over there? You mean you believe that Bush let chemical, biological or nuclear materials get in to the hands of the insurgents? Oh, perhaps you are talking about the large amount of (listen carefully and wipe the drool off your chin,) CONVENTIONAL explosives that have gone missing?

Granted, we do not know at this point exactly when they went missing. The fact is, if Bush had bothered to make a truly international coalition and allowed the number of troops we actually needed to go to Iraq, sites like this could have been guarded. If we had had more cooperation witgh the UN, places like this might never have had a lapse in protection at all.

Let me get this right. . . So what your saying is that Bush can't take credit for the capture of Osama Bin Laden (when we find him), but he can take the wrath of the Looney left because some weapons were not there (who knows when they went missing). I come to the conclusion that when Iraq became a country (you looney liberals think) Bush was supposed to stand guard over the massive stockpile of weapons that they assimilated through the years of Saddam's regime, all the while tracking Osama Bin Laden, balacing the budget, reforming health care, etc. etc.

I actually think this story that you release is quite funny because when it comes to a justified war with Saddam's regime that had been 12 years in the making, the looney left says wait let's give them more time so they can assimilate more weapons to use against us. But God forbid when a nonbias and trustworthy source such as the New York Times leaks a story that had no facts to back up it's claims, you guys are all over it like a fat kid on a cupcake. I find this rather amusing, because just like the national guard story, this one just backfired on you. When will you all ever learn?????

Oh yeah this just in from the New York Times. . President Bush met with Iranian leader today to supply him with some nuclear fuel only if he (Mr.Kohmeni) pinky promises not to use it to make nuclear weapons. Oh my bad. . . that was war hero Kerry with those comforting claims concerning Iran.

And you all trust this guy with National Security?

Let me get this right. . . So what your saying is that Bush can't take credit for the capture of Osama Bin Laden (when we find him), but he can take the wrath of the Looney left because some weapons were not there (who knows when they went missing). I come to the conclusion that when Iraq became a country (you looney liberals think) Bush was supposed to stand guard over the massive stockpile of weapons that the assimilated through the years of Saddam's regime, all the while tracking Osama Bin Laden, balacing the budget, reforming health care, etc. etc.

I actually think this story that you release is quite funny because when it comes to a justified war with Saddam's regime that had been 12 years in the making, the looney left says wait let's give them more time so they can assimilate more weapons to use against us. But God forbid when a nonbias and trustworthy source such as the New York Times leaks a story that had no facts to back up it's claims, then you guys are all over it like a fat kid on a cupcake. I find this rather amusing, because just like the national guard story, this one just backfired on you. When will you all ever learn?????

Oh yeah this just in from the New York Times. . President Bush met with Iranian leader today to supply him with some nuclear fuel only if he (Mr.Kohmeni) pinky promises not to use it to make nuclear weapons. Oh my bad. . . that was war hero Kerry with made those comforting claims concerning Iran.

And you all trust this guy with National Security?
It is wasted effort Armed. Most of these people are either reading only what they want, or whatnot, and seem to be missing the fact that the story has already been debunked in the media,by the media. THAT was the primary reason we allowed journalists to be embedded with troops anyway, glad it worked for something. There are no better eyewitnesses than those clowns, because they tell everything with no real loyalty. The embedded NBC journalists who were with the unit that went IMMEDIATELY to the base in question, only to find the weapons missing---glossed over by the left.
The fact the last time the UN saw the weapons was in January, MONTHS before the invasion----glossed over by the left Kerry's transparent attempt to make something of this---should backfire, we will see in a few days.
Edit: That said, I am curious where you got the info on Kerry/Iran? I find it difficult to believe the Senator has met with the Iranian president?Or did he make a statement that he planned this?

Let me get this right. . . So what your saying is that Bush can't take credit for the capture of Osama Bin Laden (when we find him), but he can take the wrath of the Looney left because some weapons were not there (who knows when they went missing). I come to the conclusion that when Iraq became a country (you looney liberals think) Bush was supposed to stand guard over the massive stockpile of weapons that the assimilated through the years of Saddam's regime, all the while tracking Osama Bin Laden, balacing the budget, reforming health care, etc. etc.

I actually think this story that you release is quite funny because when it comes to a justified war with Saddam's regime that had been 12 years in the making, the looney left says wait let's give them more time so they can assimilate more weapons to use against us. But God forbid when a nonbias and trustworthy source such as the New York Times leaks a story that had no facts to back up it's claims, then you guys are all over it like a fat kid on a cupcake. I find this rather amusing, because just like the national guard story, this one just backfired on you. When will you all ever learn?????

Oh yeah this just in from the New York Times. . President Bush met with Iranian leader today to supply him with some nuclear fuel only if he (Mr.Kohmeni) pinky promises not to use it to make nuclear weapons. Oh my bad. . . that was war hero Kerry with made those comforting claims concerning Iran.

And you all trust this guy with National Security?


Wow, my point went whizzing by your head didn't it? I SAID that if Bush is not responsible for the missing explosives, then you can't hold him high if he were to capture Osama. To put it another way, you can not give Bush credit for military successes unless you are also willing to give him credit for military failures. Does that make sense to you now? It's called accountability, for both the good and the bad.

Now, as far as your point about Bush being unable to effectively run the war on Iraq, hunt for Osama, balancing the bidget, working effectively on healthcare, and taking proper care of high explosives, I agree. Perhaps Bush shouldn't have put so much on his plate at once. He clearly bit off more than he can chew. It's been the downfall of many an overreaching leader.

It is wasted effort Armed. Most of these people are either reading only what they want, or whatnot, and seem to be missing the fact that the story has already been debunked in the media,by the media. THAT was the primary reason we allowed journalists to be embedded with troops anyway, glad it worked for something. There are no better eyewitnesses than those clowns, because they tell everything with no real loyalty. The embedded NBC journalists who were with the unit that went IMMEDIATELY to the base in question, only to find the weapons missing---glossed over by the left.
The fact the last time the UN saw the weapons was in January, MONTHS before the invasion----glossed over by the left Kerry's transparent attempt to make something of this---should backfire, we will see in a few days.

Too bad, in your effort to pat yourself on the back, you've missed the media's debunking of the debunking of the explosives story. The Pentagon themselves said TODAY that they don't know when the explosives went missing. But I guess the Pentagon is a biased source.

Too bad, in your effort to pat yourself on the back, you've missed the media's debunking of the debunking of the explosives story. The Pentagon themselves said TODAY that they don't know when the explosives went missing. But I guess the Pentagon is a biased source.
No, I caught that, and I understand your posts, as I told you before. My whole point being that , you are correct, nobody KNOWS when they went missing, but the left has jumped up and down,gloating at what they see as a military blunder, that was not necessarily so. I still recall, as I posted here yesterday, that we were told before even arriving in the country. Granted, our unit did not arrive at the beginning,thanks to Turkey, but nonetheless, it is an old story, trying to discredit the troops that the left with one side pretends to care for, and with the other side, is only too eager to show where we f***ed up, and the real bad part is, as you have said yourself, NOBODY KNOWS EXACTLY WHEN THEY WENT MISSING. They were not being "guarded"prior to the invasion, either, Saddam knew he would lose the coming fight, and likely would have been smart enough to plan some sort of resisitance,possibly with the help of a large stockpile of weapons and explosives.

It is wasted effort Armed. Most of these people are either reading only what they want, or whatnot, and seem to be missing the fact that the story has already been debunked in the media,by the media. THAT was the primary reason we allowed journalists to be embedded with troops anyway, glad it worked for something. There are no better eyewitnesses than those clowns, because they tell everything with no real loyalty. The embedded NBC journalists who were with the unit that went IMMEDIATELY to the base in question, only to find the weapons missing---glossed over by the left.
The fact the last time the UN saw the weapons was in January, MONTHS before the invasion----glossed over by the left Kerry's transparent attempt to make something of this---should backfire, we will see in a few days.
Edit: That said, I am curious where you got the info on Kerry/Iran? I find it difficult to believe the Senator has met with the Iranian president?Or did he make a statement that he planned this?

John Kerry's website
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/strategy.html

Prevent Iran From Developing Nuclear Weapons. A nuclear armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region. While we have been preoccupied in Iraq, Iran has reportedly been moving ahead with its nuclear program. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and leave the negotiations to the Europeans. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve these issues and lead a global effort to prevent Iran from obtaining the technology necessary to build nuclear weapons. Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. Under the current circumstances, John Kerry believes we should support the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) efforts to discern the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, while pushing Iran to agree to a verifiable and permanent suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing programs. If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action.
I would like to see anyone argue with this being a bias source. Would you like to explain this one to me Gymoor?

John Kerry's website
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/strategy.html

Prevent Iran From Developing Nuclear Weapons. A nuclear armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region. While we have been preoccupied in Iraq, Iran has reportedly been moving ahead with its nuclear program. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and leave the negotiations to the Europeans. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve these issues and lead a global effort to prevent Iran from obtaining the technology necessary to build nuclear weapons. Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. Under the current circumstances, John Kerry believes we should support the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) efforts to discern the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, while pushing Iran to agree to a verifiable and permanent suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing programs. If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action.
I would like to see anyone argue with this being a bias source. Would you like to explain this one to me Gymoor?


Sure. I have never once denied that Kerry made this proposal. See, instead of waiting for Iran to proceed with it's weapons programs unimpeded (as they are now,) Kerry would organize a group of states to offer the nuclear material, which would always be under the full surveilance and operation of the IAEA and the US officials. If Iran so much as farted without our permission when using these materials, we would be able to move them away or destruct the site. This would also back the UN into an unavoidable corner about absolutely having to take action in concert with the US. This is good diplomacy, because it deals in absolutes.

If, on the other hand, Iran agrees to the process, then they will have abundant energy, they will be more willing to be open with the US in the future, an the building blocks for lifting people out of desperate poverty/radical thought will be set in place. Thus it will be a victory in the fight against terroism.

Seriously, are you suggesting that Kerry is actually advocating handing the materials over and then walking away? Please. You can't be so dense.

Gymoor you kill me. . .
What is Kerry going to say after he realizes that it's too late and their using the fuel for other things? "Guys give it back, you pinky promised"- John Kerry talking to Iranian leader Kohmeni (not sure how it's spelled).I mean is John Kerry planning on arm wrestling them to the ground to get it back. I would pay to see that. They could put it on pay-per-view and charge 50 bucks to view it and he can use the proceeds to pay for the 2 trillion in increased spending he proposed.

Apparently John Kerry's stance on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is providing them with nuclear fuel.

Now this is the guy I trust with national security.

What next. . . supplying nukes to Osama and friends?

John Kerry's website
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/strategy.html

Prevent Iran From Developing Nuclear Weapons. A nuclear armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region. While we have been preoccupied in Iraq, Iran has reportedly been moving ahead with its nuclear program. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and leave the negotiations to the Europeans. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve these issues and lead a global effort to prevent Iran from obtaining the technology necessary to build nuclear weapons. Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. Under the current circumstances, John Kerry believes we should support the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) efforts to discern the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, while pushing Iran to agree to a verifiable and permanent suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing programs. If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action.
I would like to see anyone argue with this being a bias source. Would you like to explain this one to me Gymoor?
Actually, I find this to be not a bad proposal, excepting that Kerry overestimates our UN brethren. The Security Council, and the UN in general, are an outdated,outmoded system that need serious overhaul, and entrusting them to force the issue with a nuclear armed Iran, while a good idea actually, just won't work, in the end, we would be faced with the same choices as in Iraq, invade, anger everyone of our leftist friends, or do nothing, and I am sure Kerry would be the do nothing one.

Gymoor you kill me. . .
What is Kerry going to say after he realizes that it's too late and their using the fuel for other things? "Guys give it back, you pinky promised"- John Kerry talking to Iranian leader Kohmeni (not sure how it's spelled).I mean is John Kerry planning on arm wrestling them to the ground to get it back. I would pay to see that. They could put it on pay-per-view and charge 50 bucks to view it and he can use the proceeds to pay for the 2 trillion in increased spending he proposed.

Apparently John Kerry's stance on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is providing them with nuclear fuel.

Now this is the guy I trust with national security.

What next. . . supplying nukes to Osama and friends?

You can NOT be serious. Are you really saying that you think Kerry is going to supply the fuel and then walk away? God you are blind. Basically what Kerry is setting up is a scenario like this:

You either accept the fuel and full cooperative observation, or you get nothing, and the sactions will be increased. If you accept the fuel and then try to do ANYTHING with it, you will quickly find a large radioactive crater in your country on that spot.

Come on. I can accept that you may disagree with Kerry vehemently, but do you actually think he is functionally retarded? You are blind blind blind in your hatred. Agree or disagree using sound rational thought, instead of this childish "worst case scenario," distortion. Takrai, who shares a number of your views, can see SOME sense in the argument, even if he thinks it's unrealistic and unlikely, which I think is a respectable stance based on solid merit and is worth debating.

You can NOT be serious. Are you really saying that you think Kerry is going to supply the fuel and then walk away? God you are blind. Basically what Kerry is setting up is a scenario like this:

You either accept the fuel and full cooperative observation, or you get nothing, and the sactions will be increased. If you accept the fuel and then try to do ANYTHING with it, you will quickly find a large radioactive crater in your country on that spot.

Come on. I can accept that you may disagree with Kerry vehemently, but do you actually think he is functionally retarded? You are blind blind blind in your hatred. Agree or disagree using sound rational thought, instead of this childish "worst case scenario," distortion. Takrai, who shares a number of your views, can see SOME sense in the argument, even if he thinks it's unrealistic and unlikely, which I think is a respectable stance based on solid merit and is worth debating.
I actually see ALOT of sense in the argument. Nuclear fuel, ie electric power, is Iran's STATED reason for doing what they are doing, and Kerry appears to be calling their bluff,not bad. Just, as I said, I don't think you can call their bluff, if you yourself have no winning hand, and I can't see Kerry having a winning hand either, if he is really going to rely on the UN. That said, if workable(a HUGE IF) it is actually a great plan. All depends though on what you are willing to gamble, and you have to be sure you have a winning hand in this game BEFORE the cards are revealed.

I actually see ALOT of sense in the argument. Nuclear fuel, ie electric power, is Iran's STATED reason for doing what they are doing, and Kerry appears to be calling their bluff,not bad. Just, as I said, I don't think you can call their bluff, if you yourself have no winning hand, and I can't see Kerry having a winning hand either, if he is really going to rely on the UN. That said, if workable(a HUGE IF) it is actually a great plan. All depends though on what you are willing to gamble, and you have to be sure you have a winning hand in this game BEFORE the cards are revealed.

Well, you would agree that one of Kerry's possible criticisms is that he's too cautious, correct? I do not think he's attempt it without a winning hand. Therefore, if it cannot be done, then the argument is moot.

That being said, the UN does need work, and part of that work has to be spearheaded by the US. I do not see the Bush administration, with it's dismissive stance against the UN and it's lack of credibility in the wolrd at large, as being able to get any constructive work on overhauling the UN done.

Can Kerry? I honestly do not know. I do think Kerry is more capable of compromise than Bush, which can be both a boon and a detriment. In this particular case, I think it's more helpful than hurtful. Kerry is also a master prosecutor.
If there is one thing in his Senatorial record that should be without reproach it is his investigative acumen, which he pursued at the cost of other pieces of his Senatorial duties in my mind. This is why it's always difficult for a Senator to get elected to an Executive position. A series of thousands of votes can always be dissected in a negative way. It can also be dissected in a positive way, but people always remember the negatives more. He is much more aware, I think, of causes, motivations, lines of influence, money flows and complex pieces of evidence than Bush is.

Now to those who say Kerry will not lift a finger to protect the US, I think that is a misrepresentation. He is indeed more cautious. He is more reluctant to commit to war without an imminent threat. He did, though, fully approve of the effort in Afghanistan (and wishes it had been carried out more thoroughly.) The offense/defense, caution/shoot first, ask questions later, approaches discussion is not without merit, but let's not get too wrapped up in hyperbole, okay?

You stated earlier you were/are in the 1st AD. I assume you know this as well.Was is correct. Stateside now Pre-seperation. But I also know a whole lot about this subject.

Wow, my point went whizzing by your head didn't it? I SAID that if Bush is not responsible for the missing explosives, then you can't hold him high if he were to capture Osama. To put it another way, you can not give Bush credit for military successes unless you are also willing to give him credit for military failures. Does that make sense to you now? It's called accountability, for both the good and the bad.

Now, as far as your point about Bush being unable to effectively run the war on Iraq, hunt for Osama, balancing the bidget, working effectively on healthcare, and taking proper care of high explosives, I agree. Perhaps Bush shouldn't have put so much on his plate at once. He clearly bit off more than he can chew. It's been the downfall of many an overreaching leader.
I actually partly agree with you here. I find the political ping pong played with military lives by both sides at times, very unnerving. If Osama is captured, the military will be who should get the credit. If these weapons were taken on our watch, it is we, also who should take the blame.
That said, I really believe the importance of the president in most matters to be greatly exagerrated. I do not believe he controls the economy, he can give it a prod here and there, but that is all, He does not control domestic agenda, congress and the supreme court usually trump him there, he does have some control over foreign policy, which is no small thing, but hearing the talk of lost jobs etc etc, makes me sick as it has nothing to do with him.
But I wander from the subject, just trying to make a point, accountability,yes, where it is due, but really, I never saw him in the field, so the good, and the bad, are ours.

I actually partly agree with you here. I find the political ping pong played with military lives by both sides at times, very unnerving. If Osama is captured, the military will be who should get the credit. If these weapons were taken on our watch, it is we, also who should take the blame.
That said, I really believe the importance of the president in most matters to be greatly exagerrated. I do not believe he controls the economy, he can give it a prod here and there, but that is all, He does not control domestic agenda, congress and the supreme court usually trump him there, he does have some control over foreign policy, which is no small thing, but hearing the talk of lost jobs etc etc, makes me sick as it has nothing to do with him.
But I wander from the subject, just trying to make a point, accountability,yes, where it is due, but really, I never saw him in the field, so the good, and the bad, are ours.

I want you to know that even as a "fuzzy headed liberal" I really respect and admire the work you folks are doing for us. I do criticize the war though. I think the planning leaves something to be desired. The execution by the troops themselves has been exemplary though. I wish you well now and for the future.

Well, I hate to say it, but at least we will see those explosives soon. :eek:
Soon? Really? What do you know about this?
I'm sure we have been seeing them for the last 18 months. What else do you think they have been using for their "Road side bombs"?

Was is correct. Stateside now Pre-seperation. But I also know a whole lot about this subject.
So why are you leaving us???? :)
And good, then you should know what I meant. ;)

I want you to know that even as a "fuzzy headed liberal" I really respect and admire the work you folks are doing for us. I do criticize the war though. I think the planning leaves something to be desired. The execution by the troops themselves has been exemplary though. I wish you well now and for the future.
Thanks. And your reasoning as I said, even the parts I disagree with, appear well thought out. By the way, you notice I did NOT nominate you for the most partisan on that other thread :) You are alright.
That said, I agree about the Kerry/Iran deal, although I have made up my own mind who to vote for, should Kerry win anyway, I guess we will see, and really, I just want it over so life can resume one way or the other.

So why are you leaving us???? :)
And good, then you should know what I meant. ;)
Every path a soldier takes has a bearing, and distance. My bearing has stagnated at echo-eight, and my distance has reaced beyond the number of 8,402 days.
There is a nice little place in Tooele, UT or Pueblo, CO that might need some extra help to make dead lines, I'm sure a crusty old 54B/74Z could find a small job there, what do you think?

The facts of the missing explosives:

1) The IAEA inspectors discovered them in January 2003. they sealed and marked the containers.

2) On April 9th 2003 the 101st Air Assault Div siezed the facility. A cursory inspection did not discover any IAEA marked materials.

3) A team sent in May 2003 to do a complete survey of the facility also did not find the material.

So the Explosives were removed sometime between January and May 2003, those are all the known facts.

From these facts two theories have emerged: that the explosives were removed before the Americans arrived, or after they arrived. It is possible that the Air Assault boys overlooked it in their quick search and that in the chaotic month after that that someone slipped in and removed 40 truckloads of material without being noticed. Like I said possible but not likely. The simplest answer is that troops didn't find the explosives because they were no longer there. After all the Iraqis had 2 1/2 months to move it unmonitored before the US soldiers arrived.

380 tons is a blip on the radar screen, it sounds like an awful lot to people who have no military knowledge, but it isn't.

You can fit about 380 tons into the box of this truck.

http://www.gizmodo.com/archives/images/t282b.jpg

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that's alot of explosives.

Well, you would agree that one of Kerry's possible criticisms is that he's too cautious, correct? I do not think he's attempt it without a winning hand. Therefore, if it cannot be done, then the argument is moot.

That being said, the UN does need work, and part of that work has to be spearheaded by the US. I do not see the Bush administration, with it's dismissive stance against the UN and it's lack of credibility in the wolrd at large, as being able to get any constructive work on overhauling the UN done.

Can Kerry? I honestly do not know. I do think Kerry is more capable of compromise than Bush, which can be both a boon and a detriment. In this particular case, I think it's more helpful than hurtful. Kerry is also a master prosecutor.
If there is one thing in his Senatorial record that should be without reproach it is his investigative acumen, which he pursued at the cost of other pieces of his Senatorial duties in my mind. This is why it's always difficult for a Senator to get elected to an Executive position. A series of thousands of votes can always be dissected in a negative way. It can also be dissected in a positive way, but people always remember the negatives more. He is much more aware, I think, of causes, motivations, lines of influence, money flows and complex pieces of evidence than Bush is.

Now to those who say Kerry will not lift a finger to protect the US, I think that is a misrepresentation. He is indeed more cautious. He is more reluctant to commit to war without an imminent threat. He did, though, fully approve of the effort in Afghanistan (and wishes it had been carried out more thoroughly.) The offense/defense, caution/shoot first, ask questions later, approaches discussion is not without merit, but let's not get too wrapped up in hyperbole, okay?

I think a strong America, under any president, always is seen with a mixture of envy and anger by most of the world governments and people. So I do not see Kerry being able to really change that perception, without weakening America to do it.
As far as Kerry not defending the country, I think he took an oath already in the military to do that, years ago. Whether or not Swiftboat is correct, and not wanting to get into that, I do not think Kerry would do NOTHING. He also voted for the war in Iraq, so, yes, he is not anti-war per se. But I think that MUCH of his popular support, IS in favor of the "do nothing " approach to world affairs, or, "just smile and they will be nice to you" and I cant really see him risking that popular support, were he to win next week, to put Iran, or any other nation"back in line"

Every path a soldier takes has a bearing, and distance. My bearing has stagnated at echo-eight, and my distance has reaced beyond the number of 8,402 days.
There is a nice little place in Tooele, UT or Pueblo, CO that might need some extra help to make dead lines, I'm sure a crusty old 54B/74Z could find a small job there, what do you think?
Best of luck to you :) Sad to see the true professionals leave the game so to speak though. Off the topic, but Pueblo is a beautiful place if you haven't been there before. I grew up in the La Mesa range near there, and have spent time near there professionally as well.

The facts of the missing explosives:

1) The IAEA inspectors discovered them in January 2003. they sealed and marked the containers.

2) On April 9th 2003 the 101st Air Assault Div siezed the facility. A cursory inspection did not discover any IAEA marked materials.

3) A team sent in May 2003 to do a complete survey of the facility also did not find the material.

So the Explosives were removed sometime between January and May 2003, those are all the known facts.

From these facts two theories have emerged: that the explosives were removed before the Americans arrived, or after they arrived. It is possible that the Air Assault boys overlooked it in their quick search and that in the chaotic month after that that someone slipped in and removed 40 truckloads of material without being noticed. Like I said possible but not likely. The simplest answer is that troops didn't find the explosives because they were no longer there. After all the Iraqis had 2 1/2 months to move it unmonitored before the US soldiers arrived.
This is one of the most concise summaries of known facts. Well done. My opinion, unverified, simply a professional's opinion based on hunches, is that Saddam removed them knowing he would lose the war(his generals afterwards said THEY knew the war would be short and a losing effort as well, despite propaganda) And I believe Saddam used these explosives and weapons to give his resistance/insurgency a headstart.

I think a strong America, under any president, always is seen with a mixture of envy and anger by most of the world governments and people. So I do not see Kerry being able to really change that perception, without weakening America to do it.
As far as Kerry not defending the country, I think he took an oath already in the military to do that, years ago. Whether or not Swiftboat is correct, and not wanting to get into that, I do not think Kerry would do NOTHING. He also voted for the war in Iraq, so, yes, he is not anti-war per se. But I think that MUCH of his popular support, IS in favor of the "do nothing " approach to world affairs, or, "just smile and they will be nice to you" and I cant really see him risking that popular support, were he to win next week, to put Iran, or any other nation"back in line"

Well, yes and no. I think, in his manner, on the stump, and in the debates, he's trying to project an image of a more intelligent and cooperative way of making war, certainly not a "do nothing," image. Those on the far right translate that into a do nothing approach, because that is the kind of hyperbole that campaigns on both sides run on.

Now, it is doubtful that, as President, Kerry's more pacifistic base would desert him, considering that they would have to vote Republican in order to do so. It is the undecideds and the moderates who, if they vote for Kerry, will be expecting him to be a strong President. If he loses the trust of these folks, a 2nd term would be impossible.

It puts Kerry in a difficult position, which is a very strong motivation for him to deliver on the diplomatic side the cooperation I and he thinks we need in order do wage a more thorough war on terrorism, both on the end product and on the causative factors.

In other words, due to political pressure, Kerry will be forced to be more forceful than would be his normal modus operandi.

All in all, I favor a more thoughtful person being forced to be no-nonsense rather than a more impulsive person (Bush) being forced to reign it back a little.

As far as America always being seen with envy and anger, that is true to an extent, but these feelings are often tempered with admiration as well. A safer America will appeal to the latter much more than the former.

I firmly reject the idea that far-flung places hate us for our freedoms. It takes more than ideological differences to REALLY motivate people. You must admit that sometimes the American government treats other countries with at least a touch of arrogance, and at times acts hypocritically. There is a careful balance we need to reach between protecting our interests and respecting other states. I think the pendulum has swung too far to the former.

....Now, it is doubtful that, as President, Kerry's more pacifistic base would desert him, considering that they would have to vote Republican in order to do so. It is the undecideds and the moderates who, if they vote for Kerry, will be expecting him to be a strong President. If he loses the trust of these folks, a 2nd term would be impossible.

......I firmly reject the idea that far-flung places hate us for our freedoms. It takes more than ideological differences to REALLY motivate people. You must admit that sometimes the American government treats other countries with at least a touch of arrogance, and at times acts hypocritically. There is a careful balance we need to reach between protecting our interests and respecting other states. I think the pendulum has swung too far to the former.
Ok, I shortened your post. The parts I left out I agree mostly with, after consideration(see, I can be open minded :D )
The first one of these parts...I included just because it sounded funny,maybe because it is late and I have been typing up classwork for 14 hours in between reading these :) Just thought it was funny the part about "because they would have to vote Republican" makes it seem like they,perhaps vote Dem,not even because they agree, just because they hate Republicans :)
Also, I did not mean to imply I thought people hate us for our freedoms, actually, after reading alot of these posts since my return home, I have been amazed how many people in the world do not even seem to know we HAVE freedoms. I think we sometimes in our history have gotten caught up in the "big picture" ie. anti-communism, at the expense of appearing cold and evil in the "little picture" that is most often seen by the normal citizenry of much of the world, they do not think"well, the US was trying to stop communism" in Vietnam, etc, they see only "the US was defending a corrupt govt" etc. And while I try to see large and small pictures, I cannot blame those who see only the smaller picture, for coming to the same conclusion I would if that were my only point of reference.

You can fit about 380 tons into the box of this truck.

http://www.gizmodo.com/archives/images/t282b.jpg

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that's alot of explosives.
Yes, it is alot of explosives. However, in a military sense,many times that amount can be expended in a single days fighting, and as I stated, I was talking from a military viewpoint. Also note that these were explosiveS,not one single giant one.

Ok, I shortened your post. The parts I left out I agree mostly with, after consideration(see, I can be open minded :D )
The first one of these parts...I included just because it sounded funny,maybe because it is late and I have been typing up classwork for 14 hours in between reading these :) Just thought it was funny the part about "because they would have to vote Republican" makes it seem like they,perhaps vote Dem,not even because they agree, just because they hate Republicans :)
...

What I meant by "having to vote Republican," was this. Republicans are generally considered the more militaristic of the parties, correct? So, if one were on the pacifist side of things, one would probably not be tempted to defect to a Republican side based on the single issue of Kerry flexing some military muscle. Just like very conservative people are not generally convinced to defect to the Democrats side due to the massive deficit and increases in spending under Bush.

Yes, it is alot of explosives. However, in a military sense,many times that amount can be expended in a single days fighting, and as I stated, I was talking from a military viewpoint. Also note that these were explosiveS,not one single giant one.


Yes, this I know. I'm just trying to picture how many hand grenades, pipe bombs, and sticks of TNT can fit into the box of that truck.

Yes, it is alot of explosives. However, in a military sense,many times that amount can be expended in a single days fighting, and as I stated, I was talking from a military viewpoint. Also note that these were explosiveS,not one single giant one.

The way a large and well supplied military would use these explosives is very different than how someone using guerilla tactics would use them. To an insurrectionist campaign, this amount of explosives is very significant.

What I meant by "having to vote Republican," was this. Republicans are generally considered the more militaristic of the parties, correct? So, if one were on the pacifist side of things, one would probably not be tempted to defect to a Republican side based on the single issue of Kerry flexing some military muscle. Just like very conservative people are not generally convinced to defect to the Democrats side due to the massive deficit and increases in spending under Bush.
True, I see your point. I knew it couldn't be how I was reading it.

Alright I finished typing and can finally rest. Good debate Gymoor...Awhile back I posted about your Cali secession idea too, if Bush wins, you have to take the 49ers and the SF Giants with you, deal? ;)

Alright I finished typing and can finally rest. Good debate Gymoor...Awhile back I posted about your Cali succession idea too, if Bush wins, you have to take the 49ers and the SF Giants with you, deal? ;)

Well, since I'm a giants/49ers/Sharks fan, I'll be glad to keep them. You'll have to take the Dodgers and Lakers though!

:D

Hey geezer. When congress gave authority to the President to go to war, Saddam caved and let the inspectors in (this being the purpose of giving him the authority). Then the President decided the inspections were not working (contrary to reports from the inspectors themselves) and initiated the invasion. We warned the inspectors that we were bombing (try again to tell me we didn't kick them out) and started.

I won't, and I don't pretend to lecture you on the situation in Iraq. I'm sure you know a hell of a lot more about what it's like to be an American soldier there than I do. I'm just telling you the way it was.

Understand that I have great respect for those currently serving in our armed forces. My grandfather was a Major General in Vietnam. But you people consistently amaze me with your ability to unearn this respect. You made a factually incorrect statement. Excusable. But when corrected, you tried to back it up with semantics. That is inexcusable. It does not make me want to respect you.

And if that wasn't enough, the "Hey kid" did it for you. There's nothing wrong with being a kid (despite what you adult assholes seem to think). In fact, it gives me a certain amount of satisfaction to think about how much of my life I have ahead of me. But I know - I'm not stupid - that you were actually trying to insult my intelligence, or experience, or something like that. And that's not conducive to a good discussion.


Ah well. I'm not ever sure why I write these rants. Nobody's gonna read 'em anyway. But at least I can feel like I'm communicating.


I read it, I read them all.
I respect that you have an opinion, and that you care, are involved, and are aparently intelligent enough to do some research.

I just disagree with your opinion.

this is why i would never consider voting for george bush.
it is his AND OUR duty to make sure that when we send our soldier out to face death, maiming, torture, etc. that its for a GOOD REASON.

our troops have done an amazing job in iraq. i cannot imagine the pressure they are under every day. that they have (for the vast majority of them) treated the iraqi populace with respect and kindness is a testament to just what kind of men and women we have in our country.

but this is a job they shouldnt be doing. our president lied in order to get a frightened populace to agree to invade a country who has never done anythng to us nor, as it turns out, did they have the capability of doing it.

so why have 1100 of our soldiers died and many thousands more been wounded?

yes, junii, saddam hussein was a bad man, and it may be that he would have to be taken out of the picture. thats a judgement that i certainly cant make. but the judgement that i CAN make is that we didnt have to rush to do the job. it was the rushing in, which i can only see as being done because they could manipulate us into it and were concerned that if they waited that we couldnt be, that makes it WRONG.

we had time to convince the rest of the world. we had time to make sure our soldiers had body armor. dont you find it horrifying to think that people were buying body armor and sending it to their loved ones fighting in iraq? i certainly do. we had time to do all sorts of things that werent done because the administration saw a window of opportunity caused by our FEAR.

in the past i had always thought it foolish to put so much stock in having a president who had military experience. now i see that i was wrong. we have a president and his advisors who avoided military service. no i dont count being a party boy in the texas air national guard as military service. (and i dont intend to dis those who do serve in the national guard, i know many who do and im glad they are there). who besides colin powell, who has been cut out of the loop for his disagreeing with policy, have had even as much experience as the president?

well thats my rant for this morning, my sister is waiting for me so we can go do laundry in town. ill get back later to respond to anyone who disagrees with me. i hope i wasnt disrespectful to anyone here, it was not my intent.

You know, Ashmoria,
I find your article somewhat funny, and very revealing.
You see, I am a soldier stationed IN Korea, but I have been in Iraq, and am probably going back soon. And I have run my own, unscientific poll, and of the 100's of soldier I have talked to, both directly, and indirectly, about 95% are voting for/would vote for Bush and Cheney.
Now dont you think its funny that the people that are OVER there doing the fighting, dying, and leaving behind of body parts (etc) are voting the Facist, ego-maniacal, lyin to america, rush to war and killing his soldiers, current president back into office?

And Yes, Iraq really Blows. It really, really (ad naseum) sucks over there. I dont want to go back, AT ALL!! but guess what. It needs to be done, I am well trained for it, and I am willing to go back.

Oh yes - he was "caught" giving full and precise information on test results as required under the UN resolutions.... damn him to hell for being.... honest.


Saddam...Honest in the same sentenance???

Thats as big an oxy-moron as "Military Intelligence"

LMAO!!!!!

The facts of the missing explosives:

1) The IAEA inspectors discovered them in January 2003. they sealed and marked the containers.

2) On April 9th 2003 the 101st Air Assault Div siezed the facility. A cursory inspection did not discover any IAEA marked materials.

3) A team sent in May 2003 to do a complete survey of the facility also did not find the material.

So the Explosives were removed sometime between January and May 2003, those are all the known facts.


Very nice summary, I would just change/add one thing...

2) On approx April 3rd the 3ID secures the facility. They know that some IAEA marked materials should be at the facility and look for them, but do not find any. They do, however, find materials which appear to be related to a chemical weapons program. The facility is very large and so a full search will take a while.

3) On April 9th 2003 the 101st Air Assault Div relieves the 3ID. A more careful inspection still reveals no IAEA marked materials.

http://instapundit.com/archives/018682.php
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/iraq/main547667.shtml

Bearing in mind the timeline of the war, April 3 was probably the earliest time any unit could conceivably reach Al Qaqaa.

* On April 2nd, US units were reported to have fought for and seized the bridge near Kut and then reached within 19 miles of Baghdad, which would put them just outside Yousefiah.
Al Qaqaa is on the outskirts of Yousefiah.

* On April 3rd the lead elements of the 3ID were concentrating for an attack on Baghdad International Airport, approx 12 miles from Baghdad, and blocking forces had cut off cities along the way. 3ID secured Al Qaqaa on the same day.

What I want to know, is how the hell 380 TONS of explosives just get "misplaced"?

Were talking about 380 FRICKING TONS!

You cant just put some in your pocket and steal all of like that, that takes work!
Truckloads and truckloads of thermite, plastic explosives, you name it....
How in the hell can anyone be so incompetent as to simply LOSE that much
ordinance?

Great.

Now we have insurgents armed with our own explosives.

Thanks Bush.

I'll see you in Hell.

The US has had, for years, no chemical weapons. It is for this reason that it is known, stated US policy, that an attack using one form of WMD is considered as a nuclear attack, of which we retain plenty, and suits will not help.
For the rest, Yes, the slippery UN inspector actually verified part of his story while calling him a liar.
Also, probably napalm would count as some sort of special weapon, it is not chemical, and suits will not help there much either.
Anyhow, I enjoyed the debate, no hard feelings. I have a mountain of work on a thesis to finish, and have been wasting enough time on here, nothing personal :) Just the mountain is not shrinking fast enough.


I have to disagree with you on this one. The US DOES have chemical weapons. Pueblo Army Depot, Tooelle Army Depot..etc etc. I was there after 9/11 when we mobilized NG soldiers to guard these places. They are in the process of DESTROYING the weapons/chemicals, but we still have them.

But US policy for many, many years has been that we will not use Chemical/Biological weapons. Any use by another nation of Chem/Bio WMD is considered WMD and the US will only use nuclear WMD.

Thats the policy, anyway....and a good one.

I have to disagree with you on this one. The US DOES have chemical weapons. Pueblo Army Depot, Tooelle Army Depot..etc etc. I was there after 9/11 when we mobilized NG soldiers to guard these places. They are in the process of DESTROYING the weapons/chemicals, but we still have them.

But US policy for many, many years has been that we will not use Chemical/Biological weapons. Any use by another nation of Chem/Bio WMD is considered WMD and the US will only use nuclear WMD.

Thats the policy, anyway....and a good one.
Correct, I should have emphasized the US does not EMPLOY chemical weapons, and has not for years.

I have to disagree with you on this one. The US DOES have chemical weapons. Pueblo Army Depot, Tooelle Army Depot..etc etc. I was there after 9/11 when we mobilized NG soldiers to guard these places. They are in the process of DESTROYING the weapons/chemicals, but we still have them.

But US policy for many, many years has been that we will not use Chemical/Biological weapons. Any use by another nation of Chem/Bio WMD is considered WMD and the US will only use nuclear WMD.

Thats the policy, anyway....and a good one.
I should add something here. The point I was trying to make with my post was that Iraqi troops we came into contact with had chem-protective suits with them, and that this was another reason I was inclined to believe it was possible that Saddam had chem warfare programs, as I assumed everyone knew the US does not use them(chem weapons). However, even a Canadian seemed unsure whether the US would use them, so now I am not so certain that Iraqi troops knew for certain we would not.

What I want to know, is how the hell 380 TONS of explosives just get "misplaced"?

Were talking about 380 FRICKING TONS!

You cant just put some in your pocket and steal all of like that, that takes work!
Truckloads and truckloads of thermite, plastic explosives, you name it....
How in the hell can anyone be so incompetent as to simply LOSE that much
ordinance?

Great.

Now we have insurgents armed with our own explosives.

Thanks Bush.

I'll see you in Hell.
They weren't "our own"explosives, and it was not Bush, and there are ALOT of questions whether it happened before or after US troops even arrived. Try reading some of what was discussed before taking that first step ;)

Well, since I'm a giants/49ers/Sharks fan, I'll be glad to keep them. You'll have to take the Dodgers and Lakers though!

:D
Dodgers, ok, but we don't want the Lakers either, unless you keep Kobe :)

Dodgers, ok, but we don't want the Lakers either, unless you keep Kobe :)

Hmmm. Okay. But then you have to take O.J..

You know, Ashmoria,
I find your article somewhat funny, and very revealing.
You see, I am a soldier stationed IN Korea, but I have been in Iraq, and am probably going back soon. And I have run my own, unscientific poll, and of the 100's of soldier I have talked to, both directly, and indirectly, about 95% are voting for/would vote for Bush and Cheney.
Now dont you think its funny that the people that are OVER there doing the fighting, dying, and leaving behind of body parts (etc) are voting the Facist, ego-maniacal, lyin to america, rush to war and killing his soldiers, current president back into office?

And Yes, Iraq really Blows. It really, really (ad naseum) sucks over there. I dont want to go back, AT ALL!! but guess what. It needs to be done, I am well trained for it, and I am willing to go back.
and god bless you for it. the committment and professionalism of our soldiers is inspiring to me. you keep us safe even when we are doing stupid things around the world. its not our weapon systems that keep us safe, its our SOLDIERS.

if its OK with you to vote for a man who rushed us to war on a lie, its OK with me, thats the point of having a democracy. *I* can't support a president who has put us into the situation we are in now.

in a democracy, THE PEOPLE are responsible for the decisions of our government. i am exercising my right to say NO, I WONT DO THAT.

I should add something here. The point I was trying to make with my post was that Iraqi troops we came into contact with had chem-protective suits with them, and that this was another reason I was inclined to believe it was possible that Saddam had chem warfare programs, as I assumed everyone knew the US does not use them(chem weapons). However, even a Canadian seemed unsure whether the US would use them, so now I am not so certain that Iraqi troops knew for certain we would not.
they may well have those suits as part of standard equipment ever sincethe iran iraq war. there was plenty of use of chemical weapons in THAT war. or they may have them because IRAQ has a policy of using chemical weapons (when they have them) so its only smart to protect yourself against wind drift
OR it could be that they dont get good information about what the US does, so they assumed they would be attacked with chemical weapons because thats part of what they learn in training.