Main > Everything Else
Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
TA Pilot:
Did you even read any of the links pointed out here?
I did. There's no proof whatsoever that the 380 tons of explosives in question were there on 4/5 April or 9/10 April.
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.
Sounds like you should be oin the IAEA's case for not blowing them up, as suggested by Duelful in 1995.
And its amazing... we're discovered over 1,000,000 tons of ordnance and siposed of over 300,000 tons of it -- and yet this 380 tons, taken before we arrived, is news.
There were earlier incident where for instance highly enriched uranium was stolen.
And yet we're told that Iraq was not a nuclear threat.
Crazy Cooter:
Looking to see what the International Atomic Energy Agency knows (and has secured I might add) shouldn't be hindsight. That's my point. It should have been done beforehand. Then securing it would have been part of their mission. Not securing it was where the "stupidity" came in.
TA Pilot:
That's my point. It should have been done beforehand. Then securing it would have been part of their mission. Not securing it was where the "stupidity" came in.
Thats --easy--
The troops weren't THERE to secure it. They werent sent there, it wasnt in their mission, it wasnt part of the operation. THEY were on the way to Baghdad to fight.
YOU are questioning the ground commanders' decision to send them to Baghdad rather than to secure a weapons site, and you're doing it because of hindsight -- based on flawed information. YOU are not a infantry field commander, and YOU were not there. YOU dont have a CLUE as to what was going on, what the plan was, who was to do what ot any nuimber of OTHER things that go into the decision process.
The MISSION of the 3ID and 101AB was to engage Iraqis, kill them, and take Baghdad. AFTER they did that, THEN the mission of securing the several thousand munitions dumps all around Iraq can be undertaken. The mission of defeating the Iraqi army and capturing the capital was judged to take precedence over securing this or any particular site. Thats a decision made by people WAY more knowledgeable and experienced than you.
And for that matter, YOU dont even know if the explosives were there when the 3ID got there - making your entire argument pretty meaningless.
War is a funny thing. After the war is fought, a lot of people that dont have a clue in general, musch less as to what was going on at the time (like you) step forward and say "we should have done this, that, the other thing).
Next war, YOU get to sit in the lead Bradley, wearing silver oak leaves. YOU get to make the decisions. We cant possibly lose.
TA Pilot:
Hey! Here's what the commander on the scene had to say:
(CBS/AP) The first U.S. military units to reach the Al-Qaqaa military installation south of Baghdad after the invasion of Iraq did not have orders to search for some 350 tons of explosives that are now said to be missing from the site.
"We were still in a fight...our focus was killing bad guys" said the commander of the U.S. military unit that was first to arrive in the area, in an interview with CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin, confirming that they did not search the bunkers at the site for explosives, and did not secure the site against looters.
But I guess Cooter knows better than this guy.
A regular McClellan, that Cooter.
And Duelfer - the darling of the left, cited every day by Jophn Kerry, whose report showed no Oraqi WMDs or WMD programs?
"It's hard for me to get that worked up about it," said Duelfer, in a phone interview from Baghdad, noting that Iraq is awash in hundreds of thousands of tons of explosives.
Duelfer also said U.N. weapons inspectors recommended in 1995 that the high explosives be destroyed because of their potential use in a nuclear weapons program.
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.
TA Pilot:
The point of course is that there is no proof if they were there on April 4th since noone looked for them then
In which case there isnt any way you can point at Bush and blame him.
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.
No. IAEA says they were there 15 March. ISG arrived 8 May and reported there was nothing there on 27 May.
That means they disappeared between 15 March and 8 May with no proof they were there after 4 April.
If they used real trucks instead of pick-ups it could even take just one truck to move the stuff.
How do you move an Iraqi truck, even just one, on roads filled with American troops?
What do you suppose American soldiers would do when they found a lone Iraqi truck driving down thew road, a few miles from Baghdad?
What do you think the chances are of this 1 truck making 40 trips w/o being caught?
Moreover, why do you do it after the Americans have overrun the facility when you could have done it on 16 March?
Point is, the explosives are most likely in the hands of terrorists now.
And its just as likely they were put there before the Americans arrived in April.
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.