Main > Everything Else
Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
fredster:
--- Quote ---No one seems to have any 'proof' these weapons were there.
well there is proof they were there
--- End quote ---
When? 1998? 2001? Show me the money Patrickl.
--- Quote ---We took care of the problem.
and created a much bigger one
--- End quote ---
I guess that depends on if you can't see the problem that was there in the first place. Apparently you liked and supported Saddam. You don't believe he was a threat to you. We did.
Sorry if you don't agree that he would have come after the US and the UN was corrupted. Sorry if you can't see the real world.
patrickl:
The point of course is that there is no proof if they were there on April 4th since noone looked for them then. So the earliest point one can use is May 27th. Yet the Iraqi's themselves (who quote the May 27th date) claim it might also be September 4th.
The only real undisputed facts are that the IAEA verified the remainder (nearly 350 tons) was still there on march 15th 2003 and that they were gone in October 2004 when the IAEA informed Bush the high explosives were not there anymore.
You can call it insurgency or not, but terrorists started entering Iraq from the moment the war started.
If they used real trucks instead of pick-ups it could even take just one truck to move the stuff. The terrorists had ample time. Moving stuff around is not really rocket science. For all I know they moved it 2 miles, hid it there, and moved it further later. Who knows? Who cares actually? Does the fact that people don't know for sure how the egyptians build the pyramids proof they don't exist?
Point is, the explosives are most likely in the hands of terrorists now.
Crazy Cooter:
So we can argue about it or take the word of someone who was there:
"Reporter Lai Ling Jew, who was embedded with the Army
patrickl:
--- Quote from: fredster on October 27, 2004, 05:15:50 pm ---
--- Quote ---No one seems to have any 'proof' these weapons were there.
well there is proof they were there
--- End quote ---
When? 1998? 2001? Show me the money Patrickl.
--- End quote ---
Did you even read any of the links pointed out here?
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---We took care of the problem.
and created a much bigger one
--- End quote ---
I guess that depends on if you can't see the problem that was there in the first place. Apparently you liked and supported Saddam. You don't believe he was a threat to you. We did.
Sorry if you don't agree that he would have come after the US and the UN was corrupted. Sorry if you can't see the real world.
--- End quote ---
I do think that Saddam was less of a threat (to the US or Europe) than thousands of new terrorists and them owning tons of high explosives yes. I have to admit that I'm talking real world threat rather than imagined threat if a certain doomsday scenario would come true yes. Besides "they" stole more than just high explosives. There were earlier incident where for instance highly enriched uranium was stolen.
TA Pilot:
Now if we had done our homework, we would have known that the International Atomic Energy Agency had the materials at that facility under seal. We should have made an effort to secure it.
The soldiers in question were under movement orders to head to Baghdad for the "Final battle", which was just about to start. this was, quite legitimately, their objective.
YOU are trying to second-guess the commanders on the field, with hindsight. Thats am overtly stupid things for you to do , on several levels.
It comes down to what you believe to be more likely:
-The Iraqis moved ~40 truckloads of explosives out of the area between 15 March and 4 April before American troops arrived;
-The Iraqis moved ~40 truckloads of explosives out of the area between 5 April and 8 May with American troops all over the place.
The only way this is Bush's "fault" is if its the latter - and if you believe its the latter, its only because you WANT it to be Bush's fault.