Yeah, but almost 400 tons? I don't know how many tons you can fit on a standard sized truck but it's probably not much...
Let's say this took at least 40 trucks? How can Bush miss 40 trucks when there were troops in Iraq?
Let's say this took at least 40 trucks? How can Bush miss 40 trucks when there were troops in Iraq?
This lcoation was pointed out by International Atomic Energy Agency as having the most dangerous explosives, and so it should have been a priority to monitor this site before and after the invasion.
One pound of this stuff took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 170 people.
Many of the car bomb attacks happening in Iraq, killing many US soldiers, have used plastic explosives that might be linked back to these missing explosives.
The number of casualties is not a round off error, and this wasn't your usual weapons cache. This stuff can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon.
seems to me the plan was to get to Baghdad as quickly as possible - nevermind any potential sites that might be worth securing, unless it was on oil field. That Unit Commander didn't even know what the site was, despite the fact that the IAEA inspectors had tagged and sealed up a whole bunch of rather dangerous explosives there...I just don't understand the logic in not securing this site, a few hundred, or even a few thousand troops fewer in B-Dad wouldn't have made any difference..
CWJerome - you are the unofficial worst-poster of the week...following up on Cad's performance last week. Please read the latest developments in this story before you tell us how dumb you are going to make us look.
CWJerome - you are the unofficial worst-poster of the week...following up on Cad's performance last week. Please read the latest developments in this story before you tell us how dumb you are going to make us look.
BBond says, "The explosives were there on April 10 when the first American troops went through al Qaqaa. They disappeared sometime after that."
How do you KNOW this? Explain. Prove they were there. Idoicy.
March 2003: The U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq.
April 2003: 101st stays at Al-Qaqaa, notices NO sealed explosives
After the invasion: The Pentagon said Monday that ''coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations. The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility, but found no indicators of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals.
So the material went missing some time before the invasion and prior to the US assuming control. Meaning:
· It might have been sold or used by Saddam's government prior to the invasion
· It might have been looted prior to the invasion
· It might have been looted prior to the US taking control
It was not stolen on the US's watch. More information will come out, the truth will come out, and the political ploy will to hurt Bush will fail, and -like I said- you will look dumb. There is so much documented info on this within the military... I'll accept their explanations of what they were doing in that area over that of what John Kerry says every time. There is no story here, just pure speculation by Bush haters. Laughable.
New developments, LOL! You talking about Bowfinger! CNN! Just wait.... keep yammering....
How do you KNOW this? Explain. Prove they were there. Idoicy.
March 2003: The U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq.
April 2003: 101st stays at Al-Qaqaa, notices NO sealed explosives
After the invasion: The Pentagon said Monday that ''coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations. The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility, but found no indicators of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals.
So the material went missing some time before the invasion and prior to the US assuming control. Meaning:
· It might have been sold or used by Saddam's government prior to the invasion
· It might have been looted prior to the invasion
· It might have been looted prior to the US taking control
It was not stolen on the US's watch. More information will come out, the truth will come out, and the political ploy will to hurt Bush will fail, and -like I said- you will look dumb. There is so much documented info on this within the military... I'll accept their explanations of what they were doing in that area over that of what John Kerry says every time. There is no story here, just pure speculation by Bush haters. Laughable.
New developments, LOL! You talking about Bowfinger! CNN! Just wait.... keep yammering....
ericlp
Diamond Member
- Dec 24, 2000
- 6,137
- 225
- 106
Great! So Bush is off the Hook! Whew!!! I sure as Fvck feel a lot safer don't you?
Vote for Bush as half of these WMD's are probably in a container somewhere heading for your home port... WHY?????? Because BUSH Fcked up AGAIN....
Get REAL! These were Tagged and the Bush camp knew about this stuff and let it slide once again. I?m sure bush would love for this to JUST go away. But, It?s not and it will cost him another 10-20% voter loss and for good reason.
Idoicy(sic)???
Read the posts in this thread. The U.S. military went through Al Qaqaa and it was reported that they found HX but didn't inspect the entire facility. That was April 10, 2003.
Where did the high explosives go??? They were looted because the Bush administration didn't plan for the aftermath of the invasion. Idiocy.
Now they're being used in car bombs and truck bombs throughout Iraq.
More info will come out and you'll ignore that just like you're ignoring the facts now.
You're pathetic.
I read a news report today that referred to the Al Qaqaa complex as one of the largest if not the largest in Iraq. The only link I can find with information on Iraq's weapons facilities is at Global Security.org.
Check out the chart at the bottom of the page. I'll ammend my statement to one of the largest facilities until I can find a definitive link.
Entity Location Products
Al-Badr al Yusufiyah Aerial bombs, artillery pieces, and machine tool bits
Al Hiteen Al Iskandariyah Explosives, TNT, propellants, and vehicles
Al Naiman Oqba Cluster bombs
Al Qaqaa Aerial bombs, TNT, and solid rocket propellants
April 7 (Narawan Fuse) Factory Proximity fuzes for 155 mm and cluster munitions
Base West World Samawa Major armor refitting center
Diglia Zaafarniyah Software, controllers, and plastic castings
Fallujah Al Muthanna HMX and RDX explosives
Mansour Baghdad Defense electronics
PCI Ethylene oxide for fuel-air explosives
Sa'ad 5 (Sa'ad Engineering Complex 122mm howitzers, Ababil rockets, tank optics and mortar sights
Sa'ad 13 Salah al Din - Ad Dawr Defense electronics, radars, and frequency-hopping radios
Sa'ad 21 Mosul Non-ferrous ammunition cases
Sa'ad 24 Mosul Gas masks
Sa'ad 38 Fao Aircraft assembly and manufacturing [under construction]
Sawary Basra Small naval boats
SEHEE heavy engineering complex Al Dura Artillery, vehicle parts, and cannon barrels
U/I Al Amil Liquid nitrogen production
U/I Al Rabiyah Precision machining
U/I Al Taji Wheeled APCs [East European license], armor, and artillery
U/I Al-Amen Tank assembly plant [under Polish and Czech licenses]
U/I Fao Cluster bombs and fuel-air explosives
WMD is NBC, nuclear, bilogical, chemical. The high exposives the Bush administration failed to secure in Iraq aren't WMD. They can't be used to 'make' WMD. They can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. That doesn't make them WMD. You still need the nuclear component and that's the hard part. These are high density explosives which are dangerous because it takes a small amount to make a big explosion.
The smoking gun can be seen in the news from Iraq every day. Car bombs. Truck bombs. Roadside bombs.
The word is ordnance!
From Merriam-Webster Online:
Main Entry: ord·nance
Pronunciation: 'ord-n&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ordinaunce, from Middle French ordenance, literally, act of arranging
a : military supplies including weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and maintenance tools and equipment
b : a service of the army charged with the procuring, distributing, and safekeeping of ordnance
Anyone refering to ordinance has already done much to weaken his argument.
The numbers being thrown about in the thread are fairly meaningless unless held to the definition posted above. The amount of ordnance collected by coalition forces surely must include all military hardwares for the numbers to mean much of anything. Very few of us are making a fair comparison. Let's all speak apples and apples from now on.
Explosives are ordnance. Not all ordnance are explosives.
It would appear obvious (to myself, at least) that the theft of a few hundred tons of high explosives is a very serious issue. It should also appear obvious that a few hundred tons of said explosives would constitute a decent chunk of "the good stuff", as a previous poster put it.
Now spin away!
From Merriam-Webster Online:
Main Entry: ord·nance
Pronunciation: 'ord-n&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ordinaunce, from Middle French ordenance, literally, act of arranging
a : military supplies including weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and maintenance tools and equipment
b : a service of the army charged with the procuring, distributing, and safekeeping of ordnance
Anyone refering to ordinance has already done much to weaken his argument.
The numbers being thrown about in the thread are fairly meaningless unless held to the definition posted above. The amount of ordnance collected by coalition forces surely must include all military hardwares for the numbers to mean much of anything. Very few of us are making a fair comparison. Let's all speak apples and apples from now on.
Explosives are ordnance. Not all ordnance are explosives.
It would appear obvious (to myself, at least) that the theft of a few hundred tons of high explosives is a very serious issue. It should also appear obvious that a few hundred tons of said explosives would constitute a decent chunk of "the good stuff", as a previous poster put it.
Now spin away!
im going to vote for bush ... but if kerry wins im gonna laugh when everyone complains about him not living up to his own standards. if you haven't noticed kerry is full of hot air. his entire campaign is built on criticism and "plans."
Whoever thinks bush lied really needs to get a clue. He was going off information EVERYONE else was going off of, including kerry. So if your voting for Kerry just because Bush lied, if you can actually make yourself believe that, then I wouldn't vote for kerry either because he and other democrats lied as well. Also where exactly do you find out how bad Iraq is? The Media? Do you live there? What exactly did you expect? That we would move in everyone would be happy and leave? They are having elections in a month, they are developing their own military and police. Based of the information given if Bush didn't invade iraq everyone would be complaining hes ignoring information that leaves our country insecure! You better bet Kerry would have been there, I mean theres quotes of him going back to 1998 talking about it.
Stop the Bush lied already...your lying to yourselves.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that .. Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 [Flip-Flop s.o.b. !!!!]
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al-Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 [Flip-Flop s.o.b !!!]
Stop the Bush lied already...your lying to yourselves.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that .. Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 [Flip-Flop s.o.b. !!!!]
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al-Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 [Flip-Flop s.o.b !!!]
What's really interesting to me about this story is:
Why it was blown up by the media 8 days before the elections where the New York Times who recived the letter from the UN one week ago?
Also, if these huge stockpiles of explosives have been missing prior to our invasion, isn't it possible that the WMDs went missing the same way?
Why it was blown up by the media 8 days before the elections where the New York Times who recived the letter from the UN one week ago?
Also, if these huge stockpiles of explosives have been missing prior to our invasion, isn't it possible that the WMDs went missing the same way?
You know what I'm also seeing a lot of around here? People trying to justify Bush is an idiot so they can vote for Kerry. In any way shape or form they can make him look bad it justifies there vote. And while doing this ignoring what Kerry is going to offer. Kerry's plan is on his website, I'd advise you to go read it. It offers everything Bush is currently doing except Kerry said he would try and form a larger coalition and send more troops to a place he has said in the past he wants to leave. How exactly is this going to change Anything? Can anyone tell me. What about his universal health care program? Can anyone tell me how hes going to pay for that? Can anyone give me reasons why Kerry will be better than Bush? Besides Bush is an idoit, or is incompetent. While your busy bashing Bush for his retardedness Kerry is over there sitting with his plans, yet will not tell us how hes going to implement any of it or how. You know he could be even more of a moron than Bush, you can't even tell because he wont show any of his cards. What does that tell you.
So go read all of his plans and tell me how they are going to be implemented while balancing the budget and cutting taxes on small businesses, while sending more troops and spending more money in an area he wants to pull out of.
So go read all of his plans and tell me how they are going to be implemented while balancing the budget and cutting taxes on small businesses, while sending more troops and spending more money in an area he wants to pull out of.
A good point. But people dont see it that way, its because of bush's incompetence there may have been wmd's taken away. But at the same time he's stupid for invading Iraq in the first place. You can't have it both ways people.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Sure we can. You guys are now redefining the term WMD's to encompass the explosives to fit your agenda. WMD's on Bushes own definition included chemical, biological and possible nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
Thow in another $70,000,000,000 and 20,000 troops that Bush is going to request......:roll:
Putting WMD's aside and you still thing invading Iraq was unjustified think again. There were terrorist links admitted by many people here.
Iraq isn't as bad as people here seem to think. It's not hard to think that when the media is spamming it into your brain 24/7 about a car bombing. Fallujah is the main place where terrorism/fighting/bombings seem to happen. Yet this is only once city. Iraq is Bigger then California in size. To come to the conclusion that Iraq, remember the size of California, its a clusterfvck and all hell is spewing loose is not even rational considering most of the problems are in a select few cities.
Keep listening to the media though, they are there to tell you the truth, not to scare you in any way or make things look abnormally bad to get better ratings.
Iraq isn't as bad as people here seem to think. It's not hard to think that when the media is spamming it into your brain 24/7 about a car bombing. Fallujah is the main place where terrorism/fighting/bombings seem to happen. Yet this is only once city. Iraq is Bigger then California in size. To come to the conclusion that Iraq, remember the size of California, its a clusterfvck and all hell is spewing loose is not even rational considering most of the problems are in a select few cities.
Keep listening to the media though, they are there to tell you the truth, not to scare you in any way or make things look abnormally bad to get better ratings.
You read it wrong. Zeav said couldn't there have been a possibility that wmd's were taken from Iraq before we got there? He wasn't talking about explosives. And actually if you knew something about your candidate, Kerry is the one proposing sending more troops to Iraq. 40,000 to be exact.
Well that puts bush's cluster fvck in a whole new light. Not only are you saying that bush let terroist access to high explosives but also allowed them to get WMD. Go Bush Go.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Kerry said that he would expand the military by up to 40,000 with better pay and benefits to attract new recruits. Do you have something specific that states that he's going to send them to Iraq?
A war that should not have occured....from the arrogance of the American Regime!
Ah...another ignorant fool who refuses to see the truth.'
Go back and search see how many times this tact has been shredded into tiny pieces.
Come back when you have a clue.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter