blogic

NEWS: Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished from Site in Iraq

▼

NEWS: Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished from Site in Iraq

from JoeUser Forums
This is the big Iraq news of the day, high up at sites that rank stories by reader interest, although not higher than the Ashlee Simpson lip-syncing scandal -- "Lip-sunk" as the AM-NY daily put it.

Anyway, Bush's policies are less of a problem than his incompetence...

This is from the NY Times:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year.

[snip]

The bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound of the same type of material, and larger amounts were apparently used in the bombing of a housing complex in November 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the blasts in a Moscow apartment complex in September 1999 that killed nearly 300 people.

The explosives could also be used to trigger a nuclear weapon, which was why international nuclear inspectors had kept a watch on the material, and even sealed and locked some of it. The other components of an atom bomb - the design and the radioactive fuel - are more difficult to obtain.

[snip]

The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured, European diplomats said in interviews last week. Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded, beyond the fact that the occupation force was overwhelmed by the amount of munitions they found throughout the country.

[snip]

[The] Bush administration would not allow the agency back into the country to verify the status of the stockpile. In May 2004, Iraqi officials say in interviews, they warned L. Paul Bremer III, the American head of the occupation authority, that Al Qaqaa had probably been looted. It is unclear if that warning was passed anywhere. Efforts to reach Mr. Bremer by telephone were unsuccessful.
politics
28,374 views 62 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

Spetnaz!!

Your probably not far off the mark, since the materials were of Russian manufacture. It's a good bet they transported it to Syria (since Russia has strong ties there) with a final destination back to Mother Russia.

400 tons

Do you know the logistical support that is required to move 400 tons of anything? let alone high explosives.

And you expect me to believe that the Army and Marines are so retarded that they just let 400 tons drive by.

Where do you think all the munitions found during the war in schools, carnivals and places like that came from? A private collection? It all came from Iraqi Ammo Dumps.

Hell they buried MIG's out in the desert. Why?

Anything of military value that Iraq couldn't afford to lose, they dispersed and hid throughout the country.
Or they burned materials that they didn't want anyone to know that they had. You don't still believe that Iraq lit all those oil fires around Baghdad to defeat GPS bombs.

If HMX was there it would be in Tennessee right now, because it has nuclear value.

Nothing disappears without a trace
Reply #27 from PolMach Forums Top
And you expect me to believe that the Army and Marines are so retarded that they just let 400 tons drive by.


Well if it happened three weeks before the invasion how did you expect them to stop the trucks?

SPETNAZ!!

PLINKO!!
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well if it happened three weeks before the invasion how did you expect them to stop the trucks?


I was commenting on the original article. Guess I should have made that more clear.

Although Spetnaz is on the right track.

I just can't understand how people believe that 400 tons of material vanished out of a facility that we've been occupying and using since the first tank drove up to it during the invasion.

Or how they believe the military is incompetent by letting this happen, when they've been watching on TV news reports of the army gathering up munitions and destroying them for over a year. But yet, the most sensitive materials the military let looters have.

I don't buy it.

The stuff was gone before we even rolled out of Kuwait.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #28 By: Evorg - 10/28/2004 11:18:06 PM
Well if it happened three weeks before the invasion how did you expect them to stop the trucks?


I was commenting on the original article. Guess I should have made that more clear.

Although Spetnaz is on the right track.

I just can't understand how people believe that 400 tons of material vanished out of a facility that we've been occupying and using since the first tank drove up to it during the invasion.


It would take approx 40 10 wheelers to move all this material.
Reply #30 from PolMach Forums Top
It would take approx 40 10 wheelers to move all this material.


38, there was only 380 tons not 400 tons, unless I am missing something.

Though 380 or 400 tons out of how many tons the US has gotten a hold of so far is unacceptable for some people even if the small amount of material was moved before the US invasion.

PLINKO!!
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #30 By: Grim Xiozan - 10/29/2004 2:11:05 AM
It would take approx 40 10 wheelers to move all this material.


38, there was only 380 tons not 400 tons, unless I am missing something.

Though 380 or 400 tons out of how many tons the US has gotten a hold of so far is unacceptable for some people even if the small amount of material was moved before the US invasion.


The number of trucks required is *not* proportional to the amount of material moved. IE: Just cause it's a 10 wheeler does not automatically mean it can haul 10 ton of material. There is also the question of bulk to contend with.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Minor point, but it turns out only 219 tons were inventoried as present at Al Qaqaa in January of 2003. The other 158 of the 377 tons alleged to be missing are claimed by IAEA to have disappeared from a number of other munitions depots. But 377 tons sounds a lot scarier than 219, don't you think? An ABC report this evening (although I haven't seen the video) appears to others to indicate that at least some HMX was still present at Al Qaqaa on April 18, 2003. That doesn't help us on the question of who removed what when & to where, but at least the story is developing.

Of course, the lack of knowledge about what really happened isn't slowing Kerry's demagoguery - he's moved off on a slight tangent but still based on the as-yet-uncorroborated allegations, saying at a campaign stop tonight, "The bottom line is, George Bush was warned about it and he failed to guard it." Never mind that the "warning" came in May of 2003 per the IAEA, nearly a month after the ABC video was supposedly shot. Never mind that this was one of thousands of depots being dealt with. Never mind that nearly half a million tons of weapons and explosives have been destroyed in the past 18 months. Never mind that Saddam routinely dispersed weaponry & munitions when a theat was imminent, even sending his Air Force's jets to his mortal enemy Iran, no less, and burying brand new Mig's in the desert. And so on.

The most likely and logical explanation is the last one Kerry is willing to entertain, because that would be of no use to him, certainly not when he has an opportunity to stick a knife his opponent with a trumped up allegation.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Did nobody here watch the sheer scale of the looting that went on in Iraq post war? There were thousands and thousands of trucks, pick-ups and cars looting every single facility they could get their hands on and US troops just stood by and let it happen. This happened. Is it so possible to beleive that 400 or so tonnes of explosive was also looted when millions of tonnes of other material was looted? just look at the sheer quantity of heavy metal shipped to scrap yards for cash by Iraqis! Whole buildings have been reduced to rubble and moved away and people want to tell me that 400 tonnes couldn't be moved!

Conspiracy stories aside, the facts are that the material was accounted for and verified as present by the IAEA less than a month before the war, at which stage they had to leave because of the Americans. The material is now missing and to date the best washington can come up with (despite extensive survellience coming up to the war) is 2 trucks in a photo at the facility. The news networks meanwhile have now come up with video of US soldiers breaking IAEA seals and leaving high explosive material behind unsecure and open for looters. Not to mention interviews backing up this story and the story of looting on the site.

No, the evidence is pointing very strongly towards this material having been removed by looting. Just because the timing may look suspicious does not make the information false.

paul.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #33 By: Solitair - 10/29/2004 4:48:25 AM
No, the evidence is pointing very strongly towards this material having been removed by looting. Just because the timing may look suspicious does not make the information false.


Doesn't make it true either does it? And BTW *drop* the 400 ton bit. It's already been proven that it wasn't that much.
Reply #35 from PolMach Forums Top
The number of trucks required is *not* proportional to the amount of material moved. IE: Just cause it's a 10 wheeler does not automatically mean it can haul 10 ton of material. There is also the question of bulk to contend with.


Yes, the actual tons that were there is even in question I have seen it as low as 150 and high as 388, and if Spetnaz were responsible for moving it they would have done it professionally (good trucks, good time, and good route).

Die Form Plinko!!
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
You'll note my use of 'or so'. The lower the actual quantity of WMD components there the easier to move anyway. So maybe only 150 tons of WMD component high explosive was removed, doesn't change the fact that this is a serious issue. 150 tons is enough to make in the region of 300 basic small nukes. Of course you'd need the uranium, but guess what other site the US failed to secure and was looted?

Paul.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #36 By: Solitair - 10/29/2004 12:04:18 PM
You'll note my use of 'or so'. The lower the actual quantity of WMD components there the easier to move anyway. So maybe only 150 tons of WMD component high explosive was removed, doesn't change the fact that this is a serious issue. 150 tons is enough to make in the region of 300 basic small nukes. Of course you'd need the uranium, but guess what other site the US failed to secure and was looted?

Paul.


Unless it was a nuclear "weapons" facility it means nothing. Nuclear fuel used in reactors is NOT weapons grade! It can be refined to make it but that requires a large facility and a lot of eqipment. So that portion of your arguement is useless.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually have you heard of a dirty bomb?

Very very nasty and can be made with basic uranium like that 3000 barrels or so that was looted from the nuclear facility. As a scientist I can tell you that it's fairly easy to enrich uranium if you have the right equipment. The problem is enriching enough uranium to a high enough purity to make a viable high yield nuclear bomb for a long distance delivery system. A suicide bomber of course wouldn't care! They would only need a basic level of processing. Just need the equipment. Guess what else went missing from the nuclear facility?

And as a European you'll note that I use different ton units, hence the 'or so'.

Paul.
Reply #39 from PolMach Forums Top
These scare tactics reek highly of "election trick" to me. Who knows, maybe there really were explosives, etc. But lest we forget how long ago the invasion was? Does it seem not just a bit coincidental to anyone else that all this came out just days before November 2? You know what this says to me? Bulls***. That's right. Someone wants you to be scared. And someone wants your vote. Because he "warned us" about it. Please. John Kerry oughtta call him on this one: it's an election trick, people.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top

Bear in mind, nobody yet knows what happened to these weapons. I speaks ill of those who would jump to such early conclusions just days before an election.

 

Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #38 By: Solitair - 10/29/2004 12:14:04 PM
Actually have you heard of a dirty bomb?

Very very nasty and can be made with basic uranium like that 3000 barrels or so that was looted from the nuclear facility. As a scientist I can tell you that it's fairly easy to enrich uranium if you have the right equipment. The problem is enriching enough uranium to a high enough purity to make a viable high yield nuclear bomb for a long distance delivery system. A suicide bomber of course wouldn't care! They would only need a basic level of processing. Just need the equipment. Guess what else went missing from the nuclear facility?

And as a European you'll note that I use different ton units, hence the 'or so'.

Paul.


okay your a scientist. Are you a physicist? Do you have anything to do with the nuclear field.
Reply #42 from PolMach Forums Top
So maybe only 150 tons of WMD component high explosive was removed, doesn't change the fact that this is a serious issue


The real question here is, Why didn't the IAEA remove and destroy the material if they found and documented it prior to Jan 2003?
Reply #43 from PolMach Forums Top
I sure am glad the war in Iraq is going so well and that I voted for the guy that put us in that mess.


Four more years! (of bullshit)
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Bush campaign wants to do anything but admit that Bush is responsible for a mistake.

First version: Explosives removed before invasion.
Claimed evidence: Hussein would have done it, Pentagon satellite photos.
Weakness: 'imbedded' video of explosives after invasion, Iraqi government says looting happened after invasion, anonymous American military sources admit that other sites were left unsecured with explosives.

Second version: Explosives removed by soldiers.
Evidence: Oh wait, now the Pentagon is saying the opposite of what they said yesterday.
Weakness: See above. Iraqi witnesses say site was looted. Pentagon description of what was shipped doesn't closely match missing explosives.

Alternate excuse: If the explosives were looted, it's not Bush's fault, it's the troops'. Variant: Kerry is denigrating/blaming the troops for the missing explosives.
Reality: Kerry says Bush, not troops, is responsible. Only Bush supporters have suggested the troops are at fault.

We need a president who can admit to his errors, and see reality for what it is. John Kerry will be that president.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
yes drmiler I am. All it takes for a dirty bomb are the right ingredients and the right machines. All of which have sadly gone missing.

T_B the IAEA sealed and kept track of dual purpose items as they could have WMD application, but also had possible non WMD application. High explosives do have non WMD applicaitons. The IAEA had no remit to destroy such material only to ensure it was not being used for WMD. SOmething that was easy to do when it was tagged and traced, but which cannot be done with the material now missing.

Paul.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
There's only one problem, blogic.

The LEFTIST KERRY MEDIA ORGANS made the accusation. The LEFTIST MEDIA ORGANS have the burden of proof. The uncertainty about what happened is NOT PROOF.

The Bush Campaign has nothing it has to prove - YOU have something to prove and you're doing nothing but demanding that we prove the wild-ass guess of the NYT is wrong. GIVE US THE PROOF BEFORE CLAIMING YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED & WHO SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #47 from PolMach Forums Top
Reality: Kerry says Bush, not troops, is responsible. Only Bush supporters have suggested the troops are at fault


What Kerry said:

“George W. Bush who talks tough and brags about making America safer has once again failed to deliver. After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq, this administration failed to guard those stockpiles

Perhaps you are naive enough to believe Kerry was talking about Bush and Condi Rice guarding the facility. Or perhaps you are asserting Pres. Bush is on the phone to each Col and Sgt giving them direct orders. Or perhaps you are just willing to ignore ABC, CNN, CBS, et. al. reports when they don't suit you or filter out the parts which don't suit your pre-conceived notion or lemming like enough to buy the BS Kerry continues to spew while taking as gospel "anonymous sources" and unamed "iraqi witnesses".

The intellectual dishonesty is deserving of contempt and not worth wasting another word on.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
After reading this series of Blogs it appears that the forrest has been lost for the trees. The real issue is not if there were 380 tons or 400 tons. Not if there is proof that this material was stolen. Not if it could have been removed. The issue is how the United States handled the Iraq war. From the first day after Saddam fell, we began to lose control. The looting was the very first sign and events every day show a blind person that we did not secure Iraq at the borders, explosive storage sites, populated areas, pipelines etc.

This is not because our military was not doing a good job. It is because they were given mission impossible with the resources we provided. That is the forrest. That forrest has turned the Iraq peiople aginst us. It has caused more American and Iraq deaths and injuries than needed and is a failure of the President to properly plan and than later correct for his error to not provide the needed manpower. That is not a Left or Right issue it is a matter of fact. George W. Bush viloated every precept of military planning that in the past has made us successful. His generals told him what was requitred including Tommy Franks, but Bush did it his way. Even after it was clear we were not able to establish control and Paul Bremer asked for more help. Bush did nothing. Why would anyone re-elect a president who not only failed this important task but refused to correct his error when it was clear his plan is not working? In business the CEO would be removed for this kind of performance and so should Bush.
Reply #49 from PolMach Forums Top
Perhaps you are naive enough to believe Kerry was talking about Bush and Condi Rice guarding the facility.
The major network sources quoted people who had been on the scene as making the point that the troops who went through the area simply did not have the manpower to secure such a facility.

The impression I get is that, if there is a criticism, it is probably a matter of the manpower needed to do this job in Iraq. The administration has worked hard to keep a "things are under control" image from the start, and part of this has been a refusal to increase manpower in a meaningful way.

Truthfully, though, it all reminds me of the Kerry military service issue. On one level, the specifics of his medals are immaterial, but he made himself vulnerable by making his Vietnam service the center of his campaign.

Bush is in the same bind. On one level the explosives issue is unfortunate but not worthy of presidential politics -- yet, by making his leadership in the war -- and the war's success -- so central to his campaign, Bush leaves himself vulnerable to this stuff.

Personally, I would be a lot more concerned about the instincts Bush and his administration have shown in regards to the Geneva Convention. That is a deliberate move and a policy area likely to reappear. If I had not already decided to vote against Bush, I would shrug this new matter off as disheartening but not fodder for voting decisions. Very truthfully, I am more turned off by the viciousness of Bush's counter attack against Kerry, than I am about the original error. To me, this is a familiar character flaw in the man. (Not that Kerry doesn't have plenty of these too.)
Reply #50 from PolMach Forums Top
Hay guys, why are we still on this point?

The US Army explosives disposal team is saying that they destroyed 250 tons of the stuff from that site.

Link

For me the issue is dead. You guys can stop beating a dead horse now.

That's My Two Cents