Tons Of Iraq Explosives Missing

by teejay 149 Replies latest social current

• 

  Satanus

  Al-Qaqa'a, the Iraqi military complex from which 350 tons of explosives disappeared, was looted after US troops left the area refusing requests to protect the site, Iraqi witnesses say.

  They say unguarded buildings were stripped of their contents after the arrival and departure of American troops in the last few days of the war.

  Yesterday an armed Islamic group claimed to have obtained a large quantity of the explosives and threatened to use them against coalition troops. The group, calling itself al-Islam's Army Brigades, al-Karar Brigade, said on a video that it had co-ordinated with officers and soldiers of "the American intelligence" to obtain a "huge amount of the explosives that were in the al-Qaqa'a facility".

  The looted explosives have become a contentious issue in the US election campaign, adding weight to the accusations of John Kerry, that George Bush mishandled the war.

  Iraqi people claim US forces were specifically asked to secure the complex but declined to do so, saying their orders were to proceed towards Baghdad. The looters are said to have removed everything from desks and computers to ammunition and artillery shells.

  The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has revealed that among the items stolen were HMX and RDX, key components in plastic explosives such as C-4 and Semtex, which are favoured by insurgent groups. The IAEA said it had warned the Bush administration of the vulnerability of the al-Qaqa'a arsenal in April last year after the looting of the main Iraqi nuclear facility. There is strong suspicion that the explosives have been used in the car bomb attacks in which hundreds of civilians as well as US and Iraqi government forces have been killed.

  Al-Qaqa'a was identified in Tony Blair's Iraq weapons dossier of September 2002 as a place where phosgene was used to produce chemical or nerve agents. The United Nations, the IAEA and the Iraq Survey Group all found the claims to be false. The factories did, however, legitimately produce explosives for Iraq's armed forces. Before the war, IAEA inspectors checked the seals in the bunker where the material was stored and found them to be intact.

  Colonel Joseph Anderson, of the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division, said his troops had mustered at al-Qaqa'a on 10 April 2002, simply as a convenient location. No one had told him about the explosives inside the complex.

  http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=577148
• 

  dubla

  h.s.-

  Now, it is true that based on the evidence that he and his advisers fed the world, many people believed that Iraq did indeed hold weapons of mass destruction

  i came to that belief during the clinton administration....who fed me the wrong info?

  What would you think of a corporation executive, say the head of the Ford Motor Company, who sanctioned the design of motor vehicle on the advice of his design team that went on to kill thousands of people? Surely the populace had a right to demand his head regardless of his beliefs or motives?

  of course the populace has that right......what do you think november 2nd is all about?

  aa
• 

  ThiChi

  
  
  
• 

  ThiChi

  Robar:
  

  "" What does your cut and paste job have to do with my response re: the Russians and WWII?""

  Helloooo, anyone home? I did not respond because this is off topic and has nothing to do with the facts of the matter, nice try. (however, you are wrong)

  During WWII, the Good General fought in southeast Asia, against Japan, not in the Europe arena. And I am familiar with his remark, which was more of a wish to defete Hitler than any approval of the Russian Red Army. If Hitler did not attack Russia, Stalin would have continued to be aligned with Germany.

  The "Cut and Past" has everything to do with the topic at hand.

  Simon:

  ""You mean that if it weren't for the French and British YOU would be goose-stepping? YOU IGNORANT ASSHOLE""

  With respect, I resent your insults and name calling.

  I appeal to you as one human to another, with different viewpoints, and to your sense of fairness and to the very rules you have created for this site.

  (So, you are claiming that if the US did not intervene in your war, you guys would have one WWII anyway? Wow....Germany, Italy, Japan...hummm) At any rate, here is the reasons for my claim about France:

  France vs. Germany - Rise of Hitler 1933-1939 A.D. (Germany bullies France into letting them take more territory - the wussies wouldn't even fight over it - they adopted a policy of 'appeasement' - can you say SCARED?)

  France vs. Germany Round II - WWII June 22, 1940 A.D. (France surrenders to Hitler at Compiegne after putting up a fight that made Polish Army look good. Notice Vichy France who quickly jumped ship to be friends with the Germans. Without the help of good old Uncle Sam the Atlantic Wall would never have been penetrated - France would either be a part of the 3rd Reich or a satellite country of Communist Russia under Uncle Joe Stalin)

  Wow!
• 

  hillary_step

  Dubla,

  i came to that belief during the clinton administration....who fed me the wrong info?

  of course the populace has that right......what do you think november 2nd is all about?

  In the framework of this discussion, it is what was done with this misinformation by the Bush administration that is the important thing. This administration took the world to war on the basis of misniformation, Clinton did not. The UN were systematically, despite Sadam's lack of cooperation combing Iraq's facilities looking for evidence of such weapons, which they of course did not find. They pleaded for more time to complete this search, as did Colin Powell a few months before the invasion, but this advice was ignored by those whose intentions were perhaps fuelled by another agneda.

  lol...Resignation has nothing to do with elections. It is a message sent to the world that politicians, of whatever party or affiliation, must resign immediately when they have caused the uneccessary death of countless people. For example, were I living in the UK I would probably vote Labour, but would also demand the head of Blair.

  Dubla, the US presidential elections rely on those who can be purchased with marketing slogans and Hollywood style PR campaigns for life. You must of course have heard of the famous remark made in the mid 60's by a woman interviewed before the US elections, She was asked if she would vote for Governor Wallace. She replied "Never! He says he is going to get rid of my TV." What Wallace was really wanting to get rid of was the TVA ( Tennessee Valley Authority ), but all she heard was TV. Unfortunately such people make up a not inconsequential part of the electorate in the US, the floating vote, and turn the whole 'democratic' process into a rather boring and crass comedy show.

  A pox on both their houses.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  ThiChi

  """This administration took the world to war on the basis of misniformation, Clinton did not.""
  

  On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton ordered a strike "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States..." February 17, 1998, Bill Clinton: "Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan." Here are just some of the things this defection forced Iraq to admit, as cited by Clinton: "[A]n offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum...2,000 gallons of anthrax, 25 biological-filled scud warheads, and 157 aerial bombs."
  
  
  
  More from Clinton: "And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production." Of course, Saddam's son-in-law was killed when he returned to Iraq. Now, I know that everybody on the right said Clinton was using Iraq to distract from his impeachment scandal. You have a point, but screw it. This is what Clinton said, and I think someone should point it out to his supporters who are now out there saying there were never any WMD in Iraq.
  
  Clinton always spoke about Hussein's arsenal as a fact - with none of his characteristic wiggle room or hedging - and of the dictator's determination to build it as a fact. At the time, Democrats from Al Gore to Senator Tom Daschle backed Clinton 100%. So did the United Nations. President Clinton and the UN relied on intelligence information similar to the information relied on by Bush, folks. Yet when it was suggested that Clinton acted out of personal reasons to deflect from his criminal offenses, today's Bush critics dismissed that as "politics." Of course unlike Clinton and the UN, Bush is not a liberal. He took effective steps to destroy Saddam Hussein - and for that, he's attacked.
• 

  Satanus

  Thichi

  You give slick willie too much credit. Blaming him for bush's false beliefs? We know w is simple, but please.

  S
• 

  dubla

  h.s.-

  In the framework of this discussion, it is what was done with this misinformation by the Bush administration that is the important thing.

  with all due respect, that isnt what you said. you said that the people believed saddam had wmds based on the evidence that the bush administration fed to them....and, imo, that statement cant be farther from the truth. i would challenge you to find one person who didnt believe saddam had wmds during clintons administration and now does based on evidence provided by the bush administration. there might be examples out there, but i am quite sure they would be very few and far between. if your statement isnt really what you meant, fine, but i was only challenging your specific words.

  lol...Resignation has nothing to do with elections.

  first off, your analogy was poor for the simple fact that a lot of people still feel it was right to oust saddam...including every soldier ive spoken to (the soldiers that are supposed to be up in arms for fighting an unnecessary war). surely the design flaw in your example couldnt have brought any good to the car owners....only death...so that only works if your stance is that no good will ever come of saddam being taken out of power (some do contend that, so that very well might be your position). given your question about demanding a head on a platter, my reply was yes, any citizen that feels the war was a complete mistake and has only caused harm can certainly express that feeling by going to the polls and voting for kerry.

  aa
• 

  dubla

  satanus-

  You give slick willie too much credit. Blaming him for bush's false beliefs? We know w is simple, but please.

  does that mean it would be preposterous to blame kerrys false beliefs on bush? would that be giving bush too much credit and making kerry look like a complete fool? because that precisely what many of kerrys supporters on this board have done....blamed kerrys beliefs on bush. in fact, as evidenced by hillarys comment, the common argument now is that everyones beliefs about wmds stem from bush. this "idiot" single-handedly fooled quite a few people about saddam, didnt he? maybe he fooled clinton too?

  aa
• 

  xenawarrior

  maybe he fooled clinton too?

  LMAO dubla ! Retroactive deception !! Pretty soon GWB will be responsible for all that ailed us during the 70's too !!