CNN-Weapons were already missing - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-26-2004, 05:45 AM   #1
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 02:46 PM
CNN-Weapons were already missing

Looks like the weapons were already gone before troops even arrived.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ves/index.html
__________________

__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 05:48 AM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:46 AM
The original article said this
Quote:
American officials have never publicly announced the disappearance, but beginning last week they answered questions about it posed by The New York Times and the CBS News program "60 Minutes."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/in...tml?oref=login
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 06:27 AM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Yes I know about this.

I'm wondering if any of the shrill from the left will retract their posts with this new information.

This shows alot of things-

-Hans Blix and the inspectors were incompetent
-they had weapons after all, so there was a justifable reason to go in to Iraq, (if you're from the far left)
-the way that Kerry latched on to this and ran with it without verifying everything shows he is a promoter of scare tactics and will do anything to try and get elected

i could go on, but i do not want to steal anybody else's thunder.

db9.
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 06:30 AM   #4
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


-Hans Blix and the inspectors were incompetent
-they had weapons after all, so there was a justifable reason to go in to Iraq,
Weren't they all conventional weapons?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-26-2004, 06:33 AM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:46 AM
Yes they were conventional high explosives, the question remains that if the regime was able to transport 377 tonnes of high explosive to a different location before the war is it not concievable that the WMD were also transported - I think that Saddam had weapons into 2002 at least and moved them out during the UN effort and the millitary buildup. This is not WMD, be under no illusions that it is.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 06:51 AM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:46 PM
"IAEA and other U.N. inspectors left the country in March 2003 before the fighting began on March 19."

".. On April 10, 2003, its crew was embedded with the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division when troops arrived at the Al Qaqaa storage facility south of Baghdad."

That leaves the thieves nearly one month to loot the stuff.

Now you can quarrel about responsibilities on this one. I remember the U.S. warned the U.N. telling them to leave the country before they started bombing.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 07:10 AM   #7
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 340
Local Time: 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
the question remains that if the regime was able to transport 377 tonnes of high explosive to a different location before the war is it not concievable that the WMD were also transported - I think that Saddam had weapons into 2002 at least and moved them out during the UN effort and the millitary buildup.
This theory goes against all the available evidence. Both the Kay Report and the Duelfer report, commissioned by the Bush administration, indicate that Saddam had no WMD, and no WMD programs since at least 1998.

So the question that you say is remaining has been asked and answered, by the Bush administration's own appointed people. It's really time to stop this WMD fairy tale once and for all.
__________________
strannix is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 07:11 AM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 07:46 AM
hiphop,
so you are saying that the inspectors were just thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat close to finding them, but it's the usa's fault for impeding their search ?

c'mon buddy u can do better than that

db9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 07:27 AM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:46 AM
The key conclusions of the Duelfer report was that Saddams primary objective was the removal of the UN Sanctions and the reconstruction of his WMD stockpiles out of fear from Iran which will probably be a nuclear power by the end of next year - this probably would have occured if the UN Inspections found that Saddam had verifiably disarmed and the regime was not removed, be not so quick to dismiss the possibility that some, note some, material was moved.

Now the utter absence of evidence was boggling, I mean every major intelligence service in the world was absolutely wrong - now part of this was overcompensating after underestimating the capacity before the inspectors actually saw what the regime could produce and the other part was group-think. The absence of weapons program related materials would seem to confirm the feelings of those inspectors that material was moved to Syria before the war and the apparent dissaperence of this high explosives just goes to show that such a proposition is not implausible.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 07:28 AM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 07:46 AM
what A_Wanderer said
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 07:29 AM   #11
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 10:46 AM
This is the part that bothers me (from msnbc):

Quote:
At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
So, after the invasion, we found these things, but we didn't bother to post a guard around them? Inexcusable.
__________________
cydewaze is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 07:37 AM   #12
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 340
Local Time: 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The key conclusions of the Duelfer report was that Saddams primary objective was the removal of the UN Sanctions and the reconstruction of his WMD stockpiles out of fear from Iran which will probably be a nuclear power by the end of next year - this probably would have occured if the UN Inspections found that Saddam had verifiably disarmed and the regime was not removed,
I see. So Saddam wanted weapons. Perhaps you'd like to name a regime that doesn't? That's not a "key conclusion", that's telling us something that is perfectly obvious. Nobody thinks Saddam didn't want WMD. The question is, did we have to go to war to prevent him from getting them?

Quote:
No the utter absence of evidence was boggling, I mean every major intelligence service in the world was absolutely wrong - now part of this was overcompensating after underestimating the capacity before the inspectors actually saw what the regime could produce and the other part was group-think. The absence of weapons program related materials would seem to confirm the feelings of those inspectors that material was moved to Syria before the war and the apparent dissaperence of this high explosives just goes to show that such a proposition is not implausible.
Ah, a favorite of conspiracy theorists everywhere - "the evidence is that there is no evidence." A perfect self-reinforcing loop.

I'd point out that it's hardly established that this stuff went missing before the invasion. I'd recommend Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo for discussion of the contradictions Pentagon and White House officials have made in their stories as well as general problems with the "it was already gone" theory.
__________________
strannix is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 07:46 AM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:46 AM
Key Findings
Quote:
Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to ends sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions
were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that
which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion,
irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic
missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.
They are the key findings straight from the summary of the report, can you explain to me how I am misreading this part where it says that the intent was to remove sanctions and restart the program. We did have to go to war to prevent him from getting them, two choices either go to war and remove a regime of whoms barbarity was on par with the USSR or avoid war and wait for the sanctions to be lifted, at which point the regime would reactivate its program. The third option would be to leave sanctions in place and have Saddam die and the country implode into a civil war with absolutely no force to maintain order. The choice was right.

You could not prevent the man from getting the weapons in the long run without removing the regime, either the sanctions remained in place and things got worse, the smuggling continued or the sanctions would have been lifted and he would have got the weapons programs restarted a lot quicker - either way he would have got the weapons, it was only a question of time.

I am not saying that the regime would have hundreds of tonnes of weaponized WMD sitting in a warehouse with a big sign out front, I am saying that key elements of the weapons programs which could be used in a reconstituted effort just have not been found and it is plausible that they were shipped out of the country, now if you feel that that is a crazy proposition and that Saddam disarmed fully and totally but just didn't want to tell anybody about it then fine.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 07:50 AM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
hiphop,
so you are saying that the inspectors were just thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat close to finding them, but it's the usa's fault for impeding their search ?

c'mon buddy u can do better than that

db9
I don´t know what your point is. Read the articles diamond dude

Obviously IAEA guarded the site before of the war. Then the war started, the IAEA couldn´t guard them anymore and left the country. One month later, after the fall of Baghdad, the U.S. troops are there and start to guard the site. In the meantime, important explosives were stolen.

That´s the picture I get. I don´t know what you mean by "the inspectors were just thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat close to finding them".

Finding what?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 07:53 AM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:46 AM
This explosive was declared by the regime and had IAEA seals on it, they knew all about it but agreed that Iraq should keep it for later use in civilian projects like mining etc.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com