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 #51 from PolMach Forums Top
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


You are apparently unclear on "dual use" which is neither here nor there. Any and all items that had any remote connection to nuclear devises, research, support, et. al. was and is prohibited and was to be removed and destroyed or otherwise rendered harmless.
Reply #52 from PolMach Forums Top
Sorry this was a double post (my computer locked up mid post - please delete)
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
COL -

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.


NO, that's NOT the issue. This is just another tactic routinely employed by someone who has no facts to back up their allegation, the old misdirection play. Just like Dan Rather saying it doesn't matter whether his documents are fake, the "issues raised" are the whole point. What a crock of shit. If you want to argue the merits of the Iraq war, fine, but don't use this pile of manure as a basis for any of that argument.

And Don -

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.


Another crock which presumes the accusation to be true. We don't know that.

With regrets to the horse,
Daiwa
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #49 By: Don Bemont - 10/30/2004 7:10:27 PM
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.


What a crock! The 101st was there on site. All it would take to secure the site would be a company. When securing a site you limit access to entrances/exits and grounds. Are you seriously going to tell me the 101st or 3rd Div weren't enough to secure the site?Most of this facility is underground! It's NOT that difficult to secure.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
Any and all items that had any remote connection to nuclear devises, research, support, et. al. was and is prohibited and was to be removed and destroyed or otherwise rendered harmless


Not true. Dual use items were to be carefully inspected, tagged and controlled to ensure that they were being used for the right application. This was true of major chemical labs, aluminum rocket casings (which initially were suspected as centrifuge components), pre-cursor chemicals (which often had secondary fertilizer uses) and high explosives. Any single use items were to be immediately destroyed though.

Paul.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue is not just the expolsives at this site but the fact we did not control the explosives all over Iraq that have been used to kiill our troops. That has not beed addressed and is a FAR BIGGER ISSUE! It gets to the judgement of GW in the way he planned and conducted this war.

My greatest fear in re-electing Bush is what he might do in another Iraq develops. Will he make the same mistakes again. Since he does not seem to know he made errors, will he make them again? Very likely!
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue is not just this site buty all the other sites from which the terrorists have been taking explosives to kill Americans. That is a nuch bigger issue and failure of Bush
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue is not just this site buty all the other sites from which the terrorists have been taking explosives to kill Americans. That is a nuch bigger issue and failure of Bush


Another accusation without proof. This is getting very old.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #57 By: COL Gene - 10/31/2004 7:42:40 AM
The issue is not just this site buty all the other sites from which the terrorists have been taking explosives to kill Americans. That is a nuch bigger issue and failure of Bush


*Really old*!
Reply #60 from PolMach Forums Top
Not true


Read UN resolution 687, section C, I don't think there can be debate on this. Some of the items that IAEA found were possible components for nuclear warheads. Tubes, fertilizer chems and the machinery have civilian use.
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have reread section C and paragraph 12 in particular. This does not conflict with my statement above. You'll notice the statement "the destruction, the removal or the rendering harmless AS APPROPRIATE". It is considered unappropriate to destroy dual use items that are legit for other uses. These were tagged and carefully traced in order to render them harmless.

High explosives fall into this category.

Paul.
Reply #62 from PolMach Forums Top
I have reread section C and paragraph 12 in particular


12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above; to submit to the Secretary-General and the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution a declaration of the locations, amounts, and types of all items specified above; to place all of its nuclear-weapons-usable materials under the exclusive control, for custody and removal, of the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as provided for in the plan of the Secretary-General discussed in paragraph 9 (b) above; to accept, in accordance with the arrangements provided for in paragraph 13 below, urgent on-site inspection and the destruction, removal or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items specified above; and to accept the plan discussed in paragraph 13 below for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of its compliance with these undertakings;

These were tagged and carefully traced in order to render them harmless


Let's assume that the specific explosives (nuclear-weapons-usable-material) which are a component of a nuclear devise were to be removed, destroyed or rendered harmless (even though it clearly states removed).

So are you saying that by locking the door, the IAEA rendered them harmless? Are these items now harmless? If they were rendered harmless, they can cause NO HARM. If they were "rendered harmless" would anyone have any concern over the items? This is clearly not the case.

The items under debate don't seem like dual use to me. I suppose you can argue there are civilian uses for the explosives. Although if that was the intent of the UN (that these items be considered dual use) I would consider it seriously flawed. I also can't see how this was a dual use facility, in was a munitions depot, "Dual-use" means that a facility has the potential to produce military as well as civilian goods (example: the "Baby Milk" factory). The facilities co-located with the depot made missles and did not produce anything of civilian use. The plant was known as Latifiya Explosives and Ammunition Plant al Qa Qaa. That does not sound dual use to me. I suppose the debate over "dual use" is fruitless.

Still, if the items were nuclear weapons usable does it not say they were to be removed? That's what I read. And if they were to be rendered harmless, well, it certainly doesn't seem to me they were or there would be no concern.