kallend 2,027 #101 October 28, 2004 Quote Quote The evidence is showing the probablility that they weren't there before the invasion. I think most people on this thread have already stated that. Livendie summed it up pretty well: Quote The munitions were under UN control pre-invasion. The munitions are no longer controlled post-invasion. The critical factor of change was the UN evacuation. The UN evacuated due to an imminent US invasion. The loss of control of the munitions is obviously and directly attributable to US invasion. Just a reminder of why the UN left, from Fox News March 18, 2003: BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.N. weapons inspectors climbed aboard a plane and pulled out of Iraq on Tuesday after President Bush issued a final ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to step down or face war. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war. After failing to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq, Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to step down or face war in a speech Monday night.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #102 October 28, 2004 And don't forget to mention about those countries who were to authorize war, were INVOLVED in awesome business with Iraq, abusing the oil for food program."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #103 October 28, 2004 So now your post contradicts what you said a few posts up about the US instructing the UN to leave. Your new post says that the UN and Koffi ordered them to leave. They could have easily decided to stay to "secure" whatever important shit they were sitting on. I think they could've worked something out with the US to handover stuff like this. But I'm not surprised they took off... I'm sure they were scared for one, and two... it makes a political point to have these caches go unguarded and stolen, doesn't it? The UN says we don't want to invade... OH, you do? Well fuck you, we'll do what we can to hinder you since it'll make you look bad. Come on now, you're not being reasonable... again.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #104 October 28, 2004 > And don't forget to mention about those countries who were to authorize > war, were INVOLVED in awesome business with Iraq, abusing the oil for > food program. Are you talking about Halliburton again? ------------------------------------------------- U.N. documents show that Halliburton's affiliates have had controversial dealings with the Iraqi regime during Cheney's tenure at the company and played a part in helping Saddam Hussein illegally pocket billions of dollars under the U.N.'s oil-for-food program. The Clinton administration blocked one deal Halliburton was trying to push through sale because it was "not authorized under the oil-for-food deal," according to U.N. documents. That deal, between Halliburton subsidiary Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. and Iraq, included agreements by the firm to sell nearly $1 million in spare parts, compressors and firefighting equipment to refurbish an offshore oil terminal, Khor al Amaya. Still, Halliburton used one of foreign subsidiaries to sell Iraq the equipment it needed so the country could pump more oil, according to a report in the Washington Post in June 2001. http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0410/S00132.htm ------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #105 October 28, 2004 Quote So now your post contradicts what you said a few posts up about the US instructing the UN to leave. Your new post says that the UN and Koffi ordered them to leave. They could have easily decided to stay to "secure" whatever important shit they were sitting on. I think they could've worked something out with the US to handover stuff like this. But I'm not surprised they took off... I'm sure they were scared for one, and two... it makes a political point to have these caches go unguarded and stolen, doesn't it? The UN says we don't want to invade... OH, you do? Well fuck you, we'll do what we can to hinder you since it'll make you look bad. Come on now, you're not being reasonable... again. I've a better idea. Why don't you volunteer to go sit on and guard a weapons dump in the middle of a war zone, since you think it's such a great idea for other civilians to do it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #106 October 28, 2004 Quote I've a better idea. Why don't you volunteer to go sit on and guard a weapons dump in the middle of a war zone, since you think it's such a great idea for other civilians to do it. Are you mad because you were wrong and contradicted yourself? How's about this Prof... if you can, in one small part of your mind, think that anyone working on inspections and securing weaponry in Iraq thought that they'd be 100% safe... I MIGHT hear what you're trying to say. On the other hand, if you're trying to say that the people "securing" the weapons dump were civilians, how the hell were those explosives any safer with them there? If an armed group wanted to take them... they could have easily. In your definition, how does a team of civilians "secure" 380 tons of explosives? Count them and write it down? Get real. This is a manufactured "issue". You're buying what they're selling because it suits your Bush-hating.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #107 October 28, 2004 Quote Quote I've a better idea. Why don't you volunteer to go sit on and guard a weapons dump in the middle of a war zone, since you think it's such a great idea for other civilians to do it. Are you mad because you were wrong and contradicted yourself? How's about this Prof... if you can, in one small part of your mind, think that anyone working on inspections and securing weaponry in Iraq thought that they'd be 100% safe... I MIGHT hear what you're trying to say. On the other hand, if you're trying to say that the people "securing" the weapons dump were civilians, how the hell were those explosives any safer with them there? If an armed group wanted to take them... they could have easily. In your definition, how does a team of civilians "secure" 380 tons of explosives? Count them and write it down? Get real. This is a manufactured "issue". You're buying what they're selling because it suits your Bush-hating. It's great that you are a mindreader and know what they were thinking. However, volunteering to be a civilian arms inspector implies no obligation to sit on a weapons dump in the middle of a full fledged "shock and awe" war when the invading force has advised foreign nationals to leave.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #108 October 28, 2004 Quote It's great that you are a mindreader and know what they were thinking. Apparently, you're as much a reader as I am a mind reader. I merely asked you to be reasonable about what you might think their expectations of safety would be. If it were me in their shoes, I'd pretty much bet that it wouldn't be as safe as going to church. Quote However, volunteering to be a civilian arms inspector implies no obligation to sit on a weapons dump in the middle of a full fledged "shock and awe" war when the invading force has advised foreign nationals to leave. So, instead they were to sit on the explosives while the country was run by a dictator who was overtly hostile to UN forces? Again, you make it sound like these "inspectors" who had "secured" this site were actually just civilians taking inventory. So my question is, was this site EVER secure? Or had it just been marked as having explosives and then the inspectors moved on? Be honest. You still contradicted yourself.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #109 October 28, 2004 >it makes a political point to have these caches go unguarded and stolen, doesn't it? You think they left to make a political point, and not because we were planning to bomb the facility they were guarding? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #110 October 28, 2004 Whoa... now I'm really confused. First it was a "secured" site by the UN, which ,according to Kerry, the NYT, CBS, and many of you, means that the explosives were under UN control and NOT at risk of being stolen or used. THEN, the people "securing" the explosives are described as civilian weapons inspectors, so now I'm wondering how these explosives were secured. Were they counted, then left alone under the promise that they'd be "checked on" from time to time? Were they counted and put in Saddam's own bunkers at the facility under UN lock and key (sounds real "secure" to me)? Or were they guarded by armed UN troops to ensure their security? It's starting to sound like they weren't really all that secure to begin with. NOW, you're saying that we were planning to bomb the facility? Did we? If we did, that might explain why there aren't any explosives left. If we didn't, why didn't we? Was it because the UN had "secured" the place? And yes, I think that the UN is not above pulling people out, leaving explosives unguarded (or whatever their status was) in order to say "fuck you" to the US. They should be above it, but I don't think they are.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #111 October 28, 2004 Quote Whoa... now I'm really confused. First it was a "secured" site by the UN, which ,according to Kerry, the NYT, CBS, and many of you, means that the explosives were under UN control and NOT at risk of being stolen or used. THEN, the people "securing" the explosives are described as civilian weapons inspectors, so now I'm wondering how these explosives were secured. Were they counted, then left alone under the promise that they'd be "checked on" from time to time? Were they counted and put in Saddam's own bunkers at the facility under UN lock and key (sounds real "secure" to me)? Or were they guarded by armed UN troops to ensure their security? It's starting to sound like they weren't really all that secure to begin with. NOW, you're saying that we were planning to bomb the facility? Did we? If we did, that might explain why there aren't any explosives left. If we didn't, why didn't we? Was it because the UN had "secured" the place? And yes, I think that the UN is not above pulling people out, leaving explosives unguarded (or whatever their status was) in order to say "fuck you" to the US. They should be above it, but I don't think they are. Once again, until you are prepared to volunteer to go, as a civilian, into a war zone and sit on a weapons dump after a warning from the invading force for all foreign nationals to leave, I think it very hypocritical of you to criticize others for not wishing to be in that situation. The inspectors were there to inspect and verify, not to be combatants.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #112 October 28, 2004 >First it was a "secured" site by the UN, which ,according to Kerry, the >NYT, CBS, and many of you, means that the explosives were under UN > control and NOT at risk of being stolen or used. If you lock your car, does that mean no one can steal it? "Secured" is not the same as "inviolate." >NOW, you're saying that we were planning to bomb the facility? Did we? If >we did, that might explain why there aren't any explosives left. AFAIK we did. However, as troops reported seeing both explosives and munitions there after they arrived, it is clear we did not destroy every bit of explosives in the place. Did we destroy 1/4 of it? 3/4? None? Hard to say; bombing isn't a very exact science. >And yes, I think that the UN is not above pulling people out, leaving > explosives unguarded (or whatever their status was) in order to say "fuck > you" to the US. Claiming that UN inspectors would have stayed to guard a site we were going to bomb, but left only to give us a bad name (and not because they feared for their lives) is absurd. Would you be willing to die to give the UN a bad name? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #113 October 28, 2004 I had a much nicer reply to this, but the internet ate it. Quote If you lock your car, does that mean no one can steal it? "Secured" is not the same as "inviolate." So tell me... how did they secure the shit in the first place? So I guess the notion that the UN "secured" anything is bull? Again, having people tag and count then lock up explosives in my own garage wouldn't keep me or someone who wanted to steal them away. That isn't "secure". If you call that secure, then you shouldn't blame the US for the shit going missing after the inspectors left. You think they were sitting on the explosives, armed to the teeth? I thought they were civilians... Quote AFAIK we did. However, as troops reported seeing both explosives and munitions there after they arrived, it is clear we did not destroy every bit of explosives in the place. I saw the reporter who was embedded with the unit on TV this morning saying how, when they arrived, there were no explosives in the place. You're going to have to quote sources for this info, bill. For both you and Kallend... Nope, I wouldn't volunteer to guard explosives. Apparently neither did the inspectors... because they didn't guard shit. In fact, it doesn't sound like they "secured" anything at all. Counting and tagging explosives doesn't mean they're under control. If it were me, I'd put in a call to the US strategy guys and request they blow the place to shit after we left. But kallend, if you insist on attacking my argument by telling me to volunteer and then talk about it... I'll attack your argument by saying you don't have a leg to stand on here. The shit was never really "secured" and it isn't the US's fault that it went missing.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #114 October 28, 2004 And that's the logic for today Trent. Definitely SH was much better that GWB according to some."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #115 October 28, 2004 >So tell me... how did they secure the shit in the first place? So I guess >the notion that the UN "secured" anything is bull? I can get into your car in ten seconds with a centerpunch. Does that mean that it's pointless to lock your car? Is the whole idea of car door locks bull? >Again, having people tag and count then lock up explosives in my own > garage wouldn't keep me or someone who wanted to steal them away. Exactly! And someone could break into your gun safe if you had one and steal your guns. That does not mean it's OK to put them in your garage with the door open and leave. In fact, you'd be somewhat responsible if a kid came along and shot himself with one - even though nothing you could do would make them 100% secure. >I saw the reporter who was embedded with the unit on TV this >morning saying how, when they arrived, there were no explosives in the >place. You're going to have to quote sources for this info, bill. ------------------------------------------ http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS video may be linked to missing explosives in Iraq Updated: 10/28/2004 A 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein was in the area where tons of explosives disappeared, and may have videotaped some of those weapons. . . . During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS news crew bunker after bunker of material labelled "explosives." Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get into the bunkers and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords. "We can stick it in those and make some good bombs." a soldier told our crew. Soldiers who took a 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew into bunkers on April 18 said some of the boxes uncovered contained proximity fuses. There were what appeared to be fuses for bombs. They also found bags of material men from the 101st couldn't identify, but box after box was clearly marked "explosive." In one bunker, there were boxes marked with the name "Al Qaqaa", the munitions plant where tons of explosives allegedly went missing. --------------------------------------------- http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/international/middleeast/28bomb.html?oref=login Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday. The Iraqis described an orgy of theft so extensive that enterprising residents rented their trucks to looters. But some looting was clearly indiscriminate, with people grabbing anything they could find and later heaving unwanted items off the trucks. Two witnesses were employees of Al Qaqaa - one a chemical engineer and the other a mechanic - and the third was a former employee, a chemist, who had come back to retrieve his records, determined to keep them out of American hands. The mechanic, Ahmed Saleh Mezher, said employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers' responsibility. ----------------------------------------------------- From broadcast MSNBC: Following up on that story from last night, military officials tell NBC News that on April 10, 2003, when the Second Brigade of the 101st Airborne entered the Al QaQaa weapons facility south of Baghdad, that those troops were actually on their way to Baghdad, that they were not actively involved in the search for any weapons, including the high explosives, H.M.X. and R.D.X. The troops did observe stock piles of conventional weapons but no H.M.X. or R.D.X. and because the Al Qaqaa facility is so huge, it's not clear that those troops from the 101st were actually anywhere near the bunkers that reportedly contained the H.M.X. and R.D.X. ----------------------------------------------------- From an MSNBC interview on-air: MSNBC, 10/26/04 (Transcript): Amy Robach: And it's still unclear exactly when those explosives disappeared. Here to help shed some light on that question is Lai Ling. She was part of an NBC news crew that traveled to that facility with the 101st Airborne Division back in April of 2003. Lai Ling, can you set the stage for us? What was the situation like when you went into the area? Lai Ling Jew: When we went into the area, we were actually leaving Karbala and we were initially heading to Baghdad with the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. The situation in Baghdad, the Third Infantry Division had taken over Baghdad and so they were trying to carve up the area that the 101st Airborne Division would be in charge of. As a result, they had trouble figuring out who was going to take up what piece of Baghdad. They sent us over to this area in Iskanderia. We didn't know it as the Qaqaa facility at that point but when they did bring us over there we stayed there for quite a while. We stayed overnight, almost 24 hours. And we walked around, we saw the bunkers that had been bombed, and that exposed all of the ordinances that just lied dormant on the desert. AR: Was there a search at all underway or did a search ensue for explosives once you got there during that 24-hour period? LLJ: No. There wasn't a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around. But as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons, nothing to keep looters away. But there was – at that point the roads were shut off. So it would have been very difficult, I believe, for the looters to get there. AR: And there was no talk of securing the area after you left. There was no discussion of that? LLJ: Not for the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. They were -- once they were in Baghdad, it was all about Baghdad, you know, and then they ended up moving north to Mosul. Once we left the area, that was the last that the brigade had anything to do with the area. ---------------------------------------------------------------- >Apparently neither did the inspectors... because they didn't guard shit. Hence their titles. >In fact, it doesn't sound like they "secured" anything at all. Counting >and tagging explosives doesn't mean they're under control. Ever worked at some place with controlled substances (drugs, weapons etc) ? Counting and tagging is one of the primary means of controlling access to something - and more importantly, being able to tell if it goes missing. Doing that was, in fact, the inspectors' job. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #116 October 29, 2004 I'll just respond to your posted articles since you Michael Moore-ized them. Quote http://kstp.com/...ies/S3723.html?cat=1 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS video may be linked to missing explosives in Iraq Updated: 10/28/2004 Also states, but you didn't quote... "5 EYEWITNESS NEWS has determined the crew embedded with the troops may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where the ammunition disappeared." and "On Wednesday, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS e-mailed still images of the footage taken at the site to experts in Washington to see if the items captured on tape are the same kind of high explosives that went missing in Al Qaqaa. Those experts could not make that determination. The footage is now in the hands of security experts to see if it is indeed the explosives in question." Quote http://transcripts.msnbc.com/id/6323933/ ...The alleged looting was reported in The New York Times and was based on interviews with two employees of the Al-Qaqaa munitions complex and a former employee. A regional security chief echoed their stories. The men did not know whether the looting included the explosives, and it's still possible they were removed before the arrival of U.S. troops there in April 2003... Not to mention the fact from the IAEA report directly... http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/alqaqaa_documents.pdf Quote Of note was that the sealing on the bunkers was only partially effective because each bunker had ventilation shafts on the sides of the buildings. These shafts were not sealed, and could provide removal routes for the HMX while leaving the front door locked. Which could explain the fact that inspectors returning in March, who found the seals intact but did not look inside the bunkers, thought that it was all still there. All the reports of what the troops found, that I've seen, do not mention there was a large amount of explosives lying around.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #117 October 29, 2004 >Of note was that the sealing on the bunkers was only partially effective > because each bunker had ventilation shafts on the sides of the buildings. > These shafts were not sealed, and could provide removal routes for the >HMX while leaving the front door locked. Of course. It's much more plausible that skinny Russian operatives shimmied down the vents and made off with 380 tons of explosives in their backpacks than the idea that it was looted by thousands of people over the course of several months. >All the reports of what the troops found, that I've seen, do not >mention there was a large amount of explosives lying around. Report: Video Shows Explosives Went Missing After War Top Stories - Reuters WASHINGTON (Reuters) - ABC News on Thursday showed video that appeared to confirm that explosives that went missing in Iraq (news - web sites) did not disappear until after the United States had taken control of the facility where they were stored. . . . . The barrels were found inside locked bunkers that had been sealed by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency just before the war began, ABC reported. ----------------------- Are you really going to be reduced to "but . . . but they didn't see all 380 tons of it!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #118 October 29, 2004 Quote Report: Video Shows Explosives Went Missing After War Top Stories - Reuters WASHINGTON (Reuters) - ABC News on Thursday showed video that appeared to confirm that explosives that went missing in Iraq (news - web sites) did not disappear until after the United States had taken control of the facility where they were stored. . . . . The barrels were found inside locked bunkers that had been sealed by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency just before the war began, ABC reported. ----------------------- Are you really going to be reduced to "but . . . but they didn't see all 380 tons of it!" Until proven otherwise, they still don't even know if those ABC reporters... from your own quoted article... were really even at the same facility in question. Didn't you read the rest of the article you posted previously, or did you just find what you wanted to? Until the world is flipped upside down, "APPEARED TO CONFIRM" and "CONFIRMED" are 2 different things. At the outset, this article APPEARED TO BE NEW until it was discovered that old news was being used as a breaking story to undermine the elections too.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #119 October 29, 2004 >if those ABC reporters... from your own quoted article... >were really even at the same facility in question. Dude, the video shows the boxes labeled "AL QAQAA!" >At the outset, this article APPEARED TO BE NEW until it was discovered > that old news was being used as a breaking story to undermine the > elections too. ?? We knew about this at least a month ago, and we've known there used to be explosives there for almost two years. It was the White House that decided to sit on the story. It wasn't until the Iraqi interim government made a stink about it that it showed up in the US news. Should the media suppress news items from the Iraqis? Or should they only supress items that might hurt the president's chances of re-election? If only we had a state-run media . . . Pravda never caused these sorts of problems for national leaders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites