Main > Everything Else
Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
patrickl:
I'm talking about the report Crazy Cooter pointed too of course.
Actually there were several weapons caches incidents (there were a few blowing up just "after" the invasion)
Crazy Cooter:
--- Quote from: Mameotron on October 26, 2004, 01:44:24 am ---Here, Cooter, you forgot to blame this one on Bush, too.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6325688/
--- End quote ---
380 tons of explosives could probably cause an earthquake. I can't help it that Bush is a fish in a barrel. These are decisions that he and the people he put in charge are making. We bit off more than we can chew and it's becoming more and more obvious.
Dartful Dodger:
--- Quote from: Crazy Cooter on October 26, 2004, 04:03:58 pm ---380 tons of explosives could probably cause an earthquake. I can't help it that Bush is a fish in a barrel. These are decisions that he and the people he put in charge are making. We bit off more than we can chew and it's becoming more and more obvious.
--- End quote ---
you think that's obvious, but you can't see that Kerry would make things worse.
Gore lost, get over it.
patrickl:
--- Quote from: Dartful Dodger on October 26, 2004, 05:40:28 pm ---
--- Quote from: Crazy Cooter on October 26, 2004, 04:03:58 pm ---380 tons of explosives could probably cause an earthquake. I can't help it that Bush is a fish in a barrel. These are decisions that he and the people he put in charge are making. We bit off more than we can chew and it's becoming more and more obvious.
--- End quote ---
you think that's obvious, but you can't see that Kerry would make things worse.
--- End quote ---
A proper (pre-war) planning of what to do after the invasion would have prevented this problem (and many many others) The gung-ho approach Bush and Rumsfeld took to execute this war hindered this planning (or maybe they just weren't able to foresee the need to plan this since "the Iraqi's would be freed and everything would be peachy") It makes sense Kerry would have taken the time to do some thinking (and then of course there is the simple fact that he is capable of thinking, which would also be an important factor)
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: patrickl on October 26, 2004, 03:40:46 am ---They are not re-reporting he story. The date they mention is the date the UN took inventory before and between that date and now the stuff is gone. So they would report on the end of the period which is ... now.
--- End quote ---
fredster said it pretty well. Was your defense the "several caches" comment?
--- Quote ---Oh so now it isn't a problem? You were the one going bananas over the conventional arms bought by Iraq. But indeed I'd say this is much worse. The US is supposed to be there to put and end to terrorism. How do you figure people stealing high explosives is gonna help in that area? Now we don't have a government owning the stuff (a government that could/would not threaten the US BTW), but we have terrorists roaming the place with these high explosives. You don't see how that is worse than Saddam buying a few anti aircraft missiles?
--- End quote ---
perhaps you missed the ::)
The items missing are powders used in setting up the explosive action of warheads. You may have heard of them by their common name, WMD's. Since Iraq CLEARLY ::) doesn't possess WMD's, the theft of these powders amounts to a non-issue now.
In fact, the area in question was supposed to be under U.N. guard when the items in question either were or were not there.
This story is the equivalent of the DUI story that "broke" (is it really considered breaking a story if it's known about months prior to the story airing?) on the eve of the last election here that was unable to snipe the election for Gore
--- Quote ---Who knows. They did sell them plenty of stuff before the sanctions, but they would have told the UN about it.
--- End quote ---
There were things going on there that you previously stated they were doing "to protect investments in the area". There were also weapons being sold to Iraq, violating the sanctions. Now you are telling ME that "they would have told the UN about it". I must be a kettle, because you just called me black.
Cooter, the explosive power of the items in question could indeed cause trembling of the ground. To use the phrase "could cause an earthquake" is a bit of hyperbole. If we could cause earthquakes, we wouldn't need weapons during war, we'd just start an earthquake and send our guys in when we set it off ;)
They could cause explosions IF used with a warhead. Since they have no WMD's, this is a "mute" point ;)
Or is it a moo point? As in....even a cow doesn't see the point in this re-release of information over a year old...although even a cow could see that this is, indeed, a re-release of information