Were the weapons there? or not?

[Rokkitsci]

If you are a Kerry supporter = you cannot answer that question unless I tell you if I am asking about WMDs or the 'deadly 380 tons" of explosives.

Because the scenario is the same for both:

- records show that "they" used to be there.
- nobody can explain what happened to "them."
- "they" haven't yet been found.

SO - if "they" are WMD then "they" were never there, and the incompetent Bush should not have even gone looking for "them."

BUT - if "they" are the 'deadly 380 tons' - then "they" were definitely there, and the incompetent Bush lost "them."

See how easy it is to be a Democrat? no logic required.

 

[momof2inPA]

Aren't we talking about 380 tons of conventional weapons? I believe Hans Blix was only looking for certain weapons-- eg biological, nuclear.

Conventional weapons are currently being used to kill our troops, and they should never have been left for the enemy to confiscate.

Now, let's try to get a Republican to admit a mistake. That would be classic. It reminds me of the Apprentice when Donald Trump gets irritated at the Apprentices for not owning up to their errors and taking responsibility. Just like Donald tells those Apprentices, let's tell George Bush, "You're fired."

 

[minniepumpernickel]

You gave us a catch 22 type of situation. Why are you telling us how a democrat is supposed to think? Or what a democrat will say.

You tend to discount the views of 50% of the population. Why? A lot of people are pro-choice, environmentalist, socialist, and anti-war. Why do you tend to write them off as unimportant, crazy, or misinformed?


The cold war is dead. I predict that this issue won't really matter anymore. To the voting public, that is.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
The cold war is dead. I predict that this issue won't really matter anymore. To the voting public, that is.

I'm very confused. What does the Cold War have to do with this arugment?

 

[gothmog]

We are talking about dual use conventional explosives that could be used to ignite a nuclear reaction and could also be used for car bombs and IEDs.

There is video of these explosives from a US news crew and so it is clear that there was something there at the time of the invasion. http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

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.

The missing explosives are now an issue in the presidential debate. Democratic candidate John Kerry is accusing President Bush of not securing the site they allegedly disappeared from. President Bush says no one knows if the ammunition was taken before or after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003 when coalition troops moved in to the area....

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.

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.

Once the doors to the bunkers were opened, they weren't secured. They were left open when the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew and the military went back to their base.

"We weren't quite sure what were looking at, but we saw so much of it and it didn't appear that this was being secured in any way," said photojournalist Joe Caffrey. "It was several miles away from where military people were staying in their tents".

Officers with the 101st Airborne told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that the bunkers were within the U.S. military perimeter and protected. But Caffrey and former 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Reporter Dean Staley, who spent three months together in Iraq, said Iraqis were coming and going freely.

"At one point there was a group of Iraqis driving around in a pick-up truck,"Staley said. "Three or four guys we kept an eye on, worried they might come near us."

The video confirms the UN story that the explosives were at the site and were not secured by the US forces.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I'm very confused. What does the Cold War have to do with this arugment?

Okay, the weapons of mass were not found from the beginning. Bear with me, I haven't had time to do a lot of research. Is the Bush admin, or the media trying to use the anti- Russian sentiment that existed during the cold war years to make us distrust, and blame the Russians. Don't flip out on me, I am truly curious!

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by momof2inPA
Aren't we talking about 380 tons of conventional weapons? I believe Hans Blix was only looking for certain weapons-- eg biological, nuclear.

Conventional weapons are currently being used to kill our troops, and they should never have been left for the enemy to confiscate.

Now, let's try to get a Republican to admit a mistake. That would be classic. It reminds me of the Apprentice when Donald Trump gets irritated at the Apprentices for not owning up to their errors and taking responsibility. Just like Donald tells those Apprentices, let's tell George Bush, "You're fired."

Actually here is Kerry's argument. First Saddam was a threat and we should have gone to Iraq. Then, seeing the war wasn't playing out like some video game, Kerry said the war was bad and we "rushed to judgment" Saddam could have been contained. Then seeing a news report and not taking the time to actually confirm it, or do any research, even though the man is (was?) a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he implies that Saddam was a threat because he did have weapons and that the Bush Adminstration should have known that and gone in SOONER, BEFORE Saddam , or others, had a chance to get their hands on the weapons and move them. On top of that, he's basically implicating the military he is seeking to command in the deaths of the soldiers by the hands of terrorists, saying it's those weapons that the troops failed to secure, in his mind, that are now in the hands of terrorists killing our troops. So, in short, Kerry is saying the military screwed up.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
Okay, the weapons of mass were not found from the beginning. Bear with me, I haven't had time to do a lot of research. Is the Bush admin, or the media trying to use the anti- Russian sentiment that existed during the cold war years to make us distrust, and blame the Russians. Don't flip out on me, I am truly curious!

What does Russia have to do with this?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by gothmog
We are talking about dual use conventional explosives that could be used to ignite a nuclear reaction and could also be used for car bombs and IEDs.

There is video of these explosives from a US news crew and so it is clear that there was something there at the time of the invasion. http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1
The video confirms the UN story that the explosives were at the site and were not secured by the US forces.

So, Kerry is blaming the troops he someday wants to command for screwing up. Good job!!!!

 

[gothmog]

Rudy G and Bush are the only ones blaming the troops. The troops did what they were ordered to do. It was Bush who screwed up by (a) not having sufficient troops to secure the amno dumps and (b) not giving the troop the necessary orders to do this obvious and necessary task. Bush was told that we need twice to three time the troops used and went ahead with the invasion with inadequate forces. That was his failure and not the failure of the troops.

Bush screwed up and as a result terrorists and insurgents have 380 tons of dangerous high explosives (less what has been already used in car bombs and IED).

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by gothmog
Rudy G and Bush are the only ones blaming the troops. The troops did what they were ordered to do. It was Bush who screwed up by (a) not having sufficient troops to secure the amno dumps and (b) not giving the troop the necessary orders to do this obvious and necessary task. Bush was told that we need twice to three time the troops used and went ahead with the invasion with inadequate forces. That was his failure and not the failure of the troops.

Bush screwed up and as a result terrorists and insurgents have 380 tons of dangerous high explosives (less what has been already used in car bombs and IED).

Wow, you said that very well! So the "blaming Putin" issue doesn't tie into this thread? I am getting lost, lol!

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by momof2inPA
Aren't we talking about 380 tons of conventional weapons? I believe Hans Blix was only looking for certain weapons-- eg biological, nuclear.

By your logic then, the WMD's are still there = right?

We just don't know where they are.

Maybe we should have invaded sooner = before they were hidden.

 

[momof2inPA]

Welcome, gothmog.

 

[momof2inPA]

Originally posted by Rokkitsci
By your logic then, the WMD's are still there = right?

We just don't know where they are.

Maybe we should have invaded sooner = before they were hidden.

What are you talking about, Morris?

I don't get your logic.

There were no WMD's. The White House has admitted this.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by gothmog
We are talking about dual use conventional explosives that could be used to ignite a nuclear reaction and could also be used for car bombs and IEDs.

There is video of these explosives from a US news crew and so it is clear that there was something there at the time of the invasion. http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1
The video confirms the UN story that the explosives were at the site and were not secured by the US forces.

Welcome to the party, gothmog.

Sit back and watch the gyrations some of these people go through to spin things the Bush way.

 

[momof2inPA]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
Wow, you said that very well! So the "blaming Putin" issue doesn't tie into this thread? I am getting lost, lol!

Get your point.

 

[gothmog]

There is video of the bunkers filled of tons and tons of the explosives. What more proof do you need??

The facility was looted after the fall of Sadaam and not just by one pickup truck. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/28/1098667915337.html?oneclick=true

Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after US troops swept through the area in early April last year on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, Iraqi witnesses said.

The Iraqis on Wednesday 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 Al Qaqaa employees and the third was a former employee who had come back to retrieve his records, to keep them out of US hands.

A mechanic, Ahmed Saleh Mezher, said employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers' responsibility.

The accounts show that looting was triggered by the arrival of US troops, who did not secure the site after persuading the Iraqi forces to abandon it. "'The looting started after the collapse of the regime," said Wathiq al-Dulaimi, a regional security chief, who was based in nearby Latifiya.

These explosives were dual use materials that could be used to ignite an atomic reaction. That is why they were under UN seal and inspection. The explosives are very dangerous and can be used for car bombs and IED as well as for bomb research. That is what dual use means.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by momof2inPA
I don't get your logic.

There were no WMD's. The White House has admitted this.

Not quite =

What the WH has said is essentially this = "we thought the WMD were there - every intelligence agency in the world thought they were there - we don't know what happened to them - we may still find them - we are still looking for them."

This is a perfect description of the situation concerning the missing explosives now. The UN said they were there. They were not there when we got there. We don't know what happened to them. We may still find them. We are looking for them.

The only difference is that there is only ONE source that said these explosives were there - the UN.

My question of you is this = "why are you so convinced that the WMD were NOT there before the invasion?" Could it not be just as possible that a couple of hundred pounds of ricin or anthrax could have been moved, or 'looted' as it is for 380 tons of explosives to have been moved, or 'looted?'

Why are you so convinced of one and not the other?

OUR position is that the WMD were there and so was over 400,000 TONS of other munitions. We have secured 400,000 tons of explosives so far, but we have not found the 380 tons that the UN said was in this one site, nor have we found the WMD.

What happened to them? were they there to begin with? were they moved just prior to the invasion? were they 'looted' after the invasion?

Why are you worried about the explosives but not the WMD?

We are worried about them both.

 

[momof2inPA]

There is absolutely no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

There is video and eyewitness evidence of the lost munitions and of the looters.

Here's a link to refresh your memory, Morris:
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/miamiherald/news/special_packages/election2004/9864341.htm

.."Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there," Bush said..

 

[gothmog]

Bush has a serious flaw in that he can never admit that he is wrong about anything. Today, Rudy G. blamed the troops for failure to secure the weapons. That was a disgusting statement. Here is a great response by Gen. Wes. Clark.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Gen. Wesley Clark (news - web sites) issued the following statement today:

"For President Bush to send Rudolph Giuliani out on television to say that the 'actual responsibility' for the failure to secure explosives lies with the troops is insulting and cowardly. "The President approved the mission and the priorities. Civilian leaders tell military leaders what to do. The military follows those orders and gets the job done. This was a failure of civilian leadership, first in not telling the troops to secure explosives and other dangerous materials, and second for not providing sufficient troops and sufficient equipment for troops to do the job. "President Bush sent our troops to war without sufficient body armor, without a sound plan and without sufficient forces to accomplish the mission. Our troops are performing a difficult mission with skill, bravery and determination. They deserve a commander in chief who supports them and understands that the buck stops in the Oval Office, not one who gets weak knees and shifts blame for his mistakes." ---

Bush is unfit to be president.