That pesky weapons cache and Russia's involvement

[theshire]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a4bc50c6-2870-11d9-9308-00000e2511c8.html

http://www.cabalofdoom.com/archives/001289.html

So as well as shelling momeny off the Oil For Food program, this is why Russia was so against the war in Iraq: because they feared we'd find their Weapons of Mass Destruction! The UN is corrupt!

I also found this in a different article:

The US has in the past raised concerns about Russian activities in Iraq before the invasion. During the war, Mr Bush called Vladimir Putin, Russian president, to voice concerns that Russian companies at least one state-owned had provided Iraq with anti-tank guided missiles, satellite jamming devices and night-vision goggles. Russia denied the charges and promised an investigation.

We found those Russian spies in Iraq. Now I'm trying to find a link that shows photos of Russian military and spy equipment that was new, bought and shipped post-sanctions. I'll post that if/when I find it.

John Kerry has been attacking the President about the WMDs (hear that - WMD's) that are missing, when they may well have been moved by one of the UN Security Council members who was stonewalling the US action in Iraq. And then five minutes later Kerry will say there were no WMDs. DUH, SO WHAT WAS IT THAT WENT MISSING, AGAIN?

This is pretty big news, as it means that Kerry is lying and misinformed once again, and that we knew what we were doing when we went into Iraq.

So liberals - fire away with your best excuses.

[sushi854]

Of course, how stupid of us liberals. The fact that a significant quantity of conventional explosives is missing in Iraq just PROVES that Saddam had WMD's. This means that there must be tons of anthrax and smallpox as well as several nuclear warheads hiding in Russia just waiting to destroy us.

First of all, when did Kerry or anyone else refer to these explosives as "WMD's?" The article states that the UN inspectors knew about and sealed up these explosives in January 2003, several months before the US invasion. If these weapons met the definition of WMD's back in 2003, before the war even started, Bush would have claimed that by now. These explosives certainly could be used in the manufacture of WMD's, such as the nuclear or chemical variety, but their mere existence does not automatically point to the existence of nuclear and chemical warheads. As it is, no one has ever referred to these weapons as WMD's. There is no reason to expect that Saddam wouldn't have had weapons such as these, but this was not the point of the invasion.

Regarding Russia, it does seem apparent that they helped arm the Saddam regime to an extent. I really won't make excuses for this, other than to remind everyone that powerful states acting in their own perceived best interest often find that their actions come back to bite them on the ass, such as when the US itself armed Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war because it saw Iran as the greater threat.

[theshire]

So what other use does 600 000 pounds of explosives have other than to essentially be one big WMD?

The war in Iraq was quite clearly a pre-emptive strike. They knew that these things were lying around.

The difference between these explosives being conventional and not is a small nuclear program. The very same one Saddam was desperate to restart and would have easily accomplished given the blatant corruption of both the UN and IAEA (remember how this story was initially let loose: politically motivated due to internal and extermal pressure and potential corruption).

[Shem the Penman]

Lovely demonstration of the dictum "If you can't win, move the goalposts." You have no WMD, so you're just going to call conventional explosives WMD. Pathetic.

And the "They were gone when we got there" excuse is already dead. A TV news crew embedded with the U.S. military has pictures of what may be the explosives, and the IAEA seals, at Al-Qaqaa.

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=1

We had them, we lost them, and they're in the hands of terrorists. Time for the Chimp to start explaining how his brilliant war plan made this possible.

[theshire]

So do you think that 600 000 pounds of explosives were used for fishing, or shark-baiting or something? They may not necessarily be WMDs, but they can be used to MAKE WMDs. So they posed a threat. And now I'm willing to bet the UN has their hands on them. They are corrupt as hell.

[gibby59]

Originally posted by Shem the Penman
And the "They were gone when we got there" excuse is already dead. A TV news crew embedded with the U.S. military has pictures of what may be the explosives, and the IAEA seals, at Al-Qaqaa.

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=1

We had them, we lost them, and they're in the hands of terrorists. Time for the Chimp to start explaining how his brilliant war plan made this possible.

That's not what the Washington Times is saying.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041028-115519-3700r.htm

[drew70]

Originally posted by Shem the Penman
We had them, we lost them, and they're in the hands of terrorists. Time for the Chimp to start explaining how his brilliant war plan made this possible. already explained, Shem. They have satellite photos of Saddams trucks removing weapons from Alqaaqaa on March 17 prior to the U.S. invasion. I agree they're in the hands of the terrorists, which they probably wouldn't be had the UN not sat on their hands for months. You've just further underlined the reasons we needed to take Saddam out. Time for the chump to pack up and move back to Massachusetts!

[ShadowTklr]

Originally posted by drew70
already explained, Shem. They have satellite photos of Saddams trucks removing weapons from Alqaaqaa on March 17 prior to the U.S. invasion. I agree they're in the hands of the terrorists, which they probably wouldn't be had the UN not sat on their hands for months. You've just further underlined the reasons we needed to take Saddam out. Time for the chump to pack up and move back to Massachusetts!

I could be wrong, and this isn't sarcastic, but all I saw was a satellite photo of two trucks sitting outside of the site where the explosives were. The news commentators last night on FOX were saying that it cannot be confirmed that those trucks were transporting the explosives away from the site. Is there an update which confirms the transport, or is this an educated guess?

[Cosmo_ac]

First, the russian theory. Not very likely. The UN inspectors already inspected the area, and i imagine they did a very thorough job. Anything they found would have been recorded, so the belief that Russia would spend all that energy to move them out, even when they had already been found, would make little sense. Also, these were dual use explosives, not warheads or missles, so Russia wouldn't have to worry about too much. Explosives like these can be used for other things, demolition comes to mind.

While 600,000 pounds of explosives are able to do a lot of damage, so can a gasoline truck, or a manure truck. It doesn't mean there WMD.


as far as the "they moved them out before the war" arguement, so far there is no proof of that. There's a picture of two trucks, if i remember right. However, there is no pitures of people going in or out of the buildings. Also, the building there parked in front of appears to be a different building then the one the explosives were moved out of. So, we honestly don't know for sure that those explosives were moved at that time. I imagine if they did have pictures of people coming in and out of the bulding that they would have put them out. Also, 380 tons would take more then two trucks to move.

Recently, as shem posted, there have been some photographes of explosives with UN seals on them while the US military was in the area. WEe have yet to see as to if those are the missing explosives or not.

I admit, that i think it's a little two early to come to any conclusion, other then that a hell of a lot of explosives are missing. As those pictures are reviewed, i'm sure time will tell.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

[theshire]

This is interesting (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137017,00.html)

No word yet on whether Major Pearson can confirm that the explosives his team destroyed were the “missing” RDX, HMX, and PETN, but if this pans out, coupled with what went missing (possibly on those trucks in the photos before the US got there) and what was left on the 18th, all 377 tons are accounted for. The demolition is supposed to have taken place on the 13th.

For me, this strengthens the case that the explosives were gone before the crew arrived.

[Candlewicke]

Originally posted by gibby59
That's not what the Washington Times is saying.

The Washington Times article, and lone source John A. "Jack" Shaw, has been discredited...

CNN reported that Department of Defense Spokesperson Lawrence Di Rita said Shaw was "not speaking for the Pentagon and that his views were not those of senior defense officials" and also noted that "Shaw's superiors were talking to him about his comments."

On MSNBC News Live on October 28, MSNBC military analyst and retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona said the Washington Times article is "hard to believe" and "doesn't really make sense."

The Washington Times, the right-wing neoconservative daily that bills itself as an alternative to The Washington Post, is owned and influenced by Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church.

Quotes from Sun Myung Moons website:[http://www.unification.net]

"Now we are in the process of creating The Washington Times, which can disseminate the truthful viewpoint...

Then people will understand what Reverend Moon is all about...

In order to erect a foundation of faith, each person must make some material offering. After setting a foundation of faith, a foundation of substance must follow."

And on a side note FYI, here's his answer to protests against his mass marriages:
"Adam and Eve were completely at the mercy of God; they had no choice of a mate. In the true tradition, therefore, parents should decide whom their children ought to marry." :eek:

[ShadowTklr]

Originally posted by Candlewicke
The Washington Times article, and lone source John A. "Jack" Shaw, has been discredited...

CNN reported that Department of Defense Spokesperson Lawrence Di Rita said Shaw was "not speaking for the Pentagon and that his views were not those of senior defense officials" and also noted that "Shaw's superiors were talking to him about his comments."

On MSNBC News Live on October 28, MSNBC military analyst and retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona said the Washington Times article is "hard to believe" and "doesn't really make sense."

The Washington Times, the right-wing neoconservative daily that bills itself as an alternative to The Washington Post, is owned and influenced by Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church.

Quotes from Sun Myung Moons website:[http://www.unification.net]

"Now we are in the process of creating The Washington Times, which can disseminate the truthful viewpoint...

Then people will understand what Reverend Moon is all about...

In order to erect a foundation of faith, each person must make some material offering. After setting a foundation of faith, a foundation of substance must follow."

And on a side note FYI, here's his answer to protests against his mass marriages:
"Adam and Eve were completely at the mercy of God; they had no choice of a mate. In the true tradition, therefore, parents should decide whom their children ought to marry." :eek:

Religion ought not be a "Pitch" either. People will marry whom they want. Mandates such as parents choosing their childrens' brides and grooms is an antiquated practice not widely accepted in America, and for damn good reason.

[MrMacphisto]

The U.N. is corrupt, but so is the U.S.... so where does that leave us?