That's just Crimson bravely displaying his ignorance.
If not Kerry, maybe they'll blame Clinton. :laugh:
Originally posted by: her209
LOL, another Bush apologist trying to pass the blame onto someone else. I wouldn't be suprised if the neocons somehow tried to blame Kerry for this.Originally posted by: Crimson
Then why not criticize the U.N. for not disposing of it when they had the chance? Obviously THEY did not consider it important enough to do anything put put a couple stickers on the door. Why is it GWB's fault this stuff disapeared when the U.N. had the opportunity to destroy it and chose not to?
WTF does Kay know...damn liberal wonk.Originally posted by: BBond
David Kay was all over the Bush adminsitration tonight. He said if a U.S. soldier breaks a UN seal on an arms bunker the U.S. OWNED THAT BUNKER. The bunkers with the seals did indeed contain HMX and RDX. These were the only arms sealed by the UN at AlQaqaa. Kay specifically identified the seal as well as the explosives in the bunker CONCLUSIVELY. He described the drums contained a plastic bag with the explosives which are in a powdered form. He said point blank that the reason for the looting of these explosives was that the Bush administration didn't send in enough troops to secure the country after he invaded.
On the question of WMD, Aaron Brown asked him point blank if the expolsives were WMD and Kay answered immediately, NO. He explained these explosives can be formed into a 'lens' to trigger a nuclear device.
Originally posted by: BBond
David Kay was all over the Bush adminsitration tonight. He said if a U.S. soldier breaks a UN seal on an arms bunker the U.S. OWNED THAT BUNKER. The bunkers with the seals did indeed contain HMX and RDX. These were the only arms sealed by the UN at AlQaqaa. Kay specifically identified the seal as well as the explosives in the bunker CONCLUSIVELY. He described the drums contained a plastic bag with the explosives which are in a powdered form. He said point blank that the reason for the looting of these explosives was that the Bush administration didn't send in enough troops to secure the country after he invaded.
On the question of WMD, Aaron Brown asked him point blank if the expolsives were WMD and Kay answered immediately, NO. He explained these explosives can be formed into a 'lens' to trigger a nuclear device.
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Crimson
I'm really confused here.. this stuff is extremely dangerous and HAD to be secured or the fate of the whole free world is at stake.. but Iraq had no WMD's... well.. which is it? Any if this stuff was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO dangerous why didn't the U.N. destroy it? Why did they allow Hussein to keep it? Besides, I think 400,000 tons would be WAY more than whats there.. that doesn't look like much to me.
Why isn't anyone blaming the U.N. for not destroying this stuff? Putting some seals on it guarantees Hussein wouldn't use it?
You guys flip-flop more than Kerry.
Huh? WMD's belong to a specific category. These are conventional, albeit powerful explosives. The concern isn't that Saddam had them. Just about every country with a military has an equivalent, however it's now gone. It is possible that we left an opening for the terrorists to grab it and cause a considerable amount of mischief.
It isn't about Saddam, it's about terrorists. Don't confuse them again please.
Then why not criticize the U.N. for not disposing of it when they had the chance? Obviously THEY did not consider it important enough to do anything put put a couple stickers on the door. Why is it GWB's fault this stuff disapeared when the U.N. had the opportunity to destroy it and chose not to?
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Crimson
I'm really confused here.. this stuff is extremely dangerous and HAD to be secured or the fate of the whole free world is at stake.. but Iraq had no WMD's... well.. which is it? Any if this stuff was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO dangerous why didn't the U.N. destroy it? Why did they allow Hussein to keep it? Besides, I think 400,000 tons would be WAY more than whats there.. that doesn't look like much to me.
Why isn't anyone blaming the U.N. for not destroying this stuff? Putting some seals on it guarantees Hussein wouldn't use it?
You guys flip-flop more than Kerry.
Huh? WMD's belong to a specific category. These are conventional, albeit powerful explosives. The concern isn't that Saddam had them. Just about every country with a military has an equivalent, however it's now gone. It is possible that we left an opening for the terrorists to grab it and cause a considerable amount of mischief.
It isn't about Saddam, it's about terrorists. Don't confuse them again please.
Then why not criticize the U.N. for not disposing of it when they had the chance? Obviously THEY did not consider it important enough to do anything put put a couple stickers on the door. Why is it GWB's fault this stuff disapeared when the U.N. had the opportunity to destroy it and chose not to?
Blame Russia, Blame France, Blame the UN, Blame Kerry, Blame Clinton
The party of self-responsibility doesn't seem to take any responsibility.
Who is next?
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Crimson
I'm really confused here.. this stuff is extremely dangerous and HAD to be secured or the fate of the whole free world is at stake.. but Iraq had no WMD's... well.. which is it? Any if this stuff was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO dangerous why didn't the U.N. destroy it? Why did they allow Hussein to keep it? Besides, I think 400,000 tons would be WAY more than whats there.. that doesn't look like much to me.
Why isn't anyone blaming the U.N. for not destroying this stuff? Putting some seals on it guarantees Hussein wouldn't use it?
You guys flip-flop more than Kerry.
Huh? WMD's belong to a specific category. These are conventional, albeit powerful explosives. The concern isn't that Saddam had them. Just about every country with a military has an equivalent, however it's now gone. It is possible that we left an opening for the terrorists to grab it and cause a considerable amount of mischief.
It isn't about Saddam, it's about terrorists. Don't confuse them again please.
Then why not criticize the U.N. for not disposing of it when they had the chance? Obviously THEY did not consider it important enough to do anything put put a couple stickers on the door. Why is it GWB's fault this stuff disapeared when the U.N. had the opportunity to destroy it and chose not to?
Blame Russia, Blame France, Blame the UN, Blame Kerry, Blame Clinton
The party of self-responsibility doesn't seem to take any responsibility.
Who is next?
Originally posted by: conjur
What's this? The DoD released the WRONG imagery??
http://www.globalsecurity.org/...al_qa_qaa-imagery4.htm
Nice try, Luck JF...see the link above!
Accountability.Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Blame Russia, Blame France, Blame the UN, Blame Kerry, Blame ClintonOriginally posted by: Crimson
Then why not criticize the U.N. for not disposing of it when they had the chance? Obviously THEY did not consider it important enough to do anything put put a couple stickers on the door. Why is it GWB's fault this stuff disapeared when the U.N. had the opportunity to destroy it and chose not to?Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Huh? WMD's belong to a specific category. These are conventional, albeit powerful explosives. The concern isn't that Saddam had them. Just about every country with a military has an equivalent, however it's now gone. It is possible that we left an opening for the terrorists to grab it and cause a considerable amount of mischief.Originally posted by: Crimson
I'm really confused here.. this stuff is extremely dangerous and HAD to be secured or the fate of the whole free world is at stake.. but Iraq had no WMD's... well.. which is it? Any if this stuff was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO dangerous why didn't the U.N. destroy it? Why did they allow Hussein to keep it? Besides, I think 400,000 tons would be WAY more than whats there.. that doesn't look like much to me.
Why isn't anyone blaming the U.N. for not destroying this stuff? Putting some seals on it guarantees Hussein wouldn't use it?
You guys flip-flop more than Kerry.
It isn't about Saddam, it's about terrorists. Don't confuse them again please.
The party of self-responsibility doesn't seem to take any responsibility.
Who is next?
Originally posted by: conjur
What's this? The DoD released the WRONG imagery??
http://www.globalsecurity.org/...al_qa_qaa-imagery4.htm
Nice try, Luck JF...see the link above!
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: conjur
What's this? The DoD released the WRONG imagery??
http://www.globalsecurity.org/...al_qa_qaa-imagery4.htm
Nice try, Luck JF...see the link above!
Ouch. Can't trust the Pentagon I guess, they are covering for themselves and their boss. As if one truck could steal hundreds of tons anyhow. What can one flatbed haul? 10 tons?
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: conjur
What's this? The DoD released the WRONG imagery??
http://www.globalsecurity.org/...al_qa_qaa-imagery4.htm
Nice try, Luck JF...see the link above!
Ouch. Can't trust the Pentagon I guess, they are covering for themselves and their boss. As if one truck could steal hundreds of tons anyhow. What can one flatbed haul? 10 tons?
Question is: How many trips were they able to make?
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Blame Russia, Blame France, Blame the UN, Blame Kerry, Blame Clinton
BAGHDAD, Iraq ? Looters stormed the weapons site at Al-Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday.
The Iraqis described an orgy of theft so extensive that enterprising residents rented their trucks to looters. Some looting was clearly indiscriminate, with people grabbing anything they could find and later heaving unwanted items off the trucks.
Two witnesses were employees of Al-Qaqaa ? one a chemical engineer and the other a mechanic ? and the third was a former employee, a chemist, who had come back to retrieve his records to keep them out of American hands. The mechanic, Ahmed Saleh Mezher, said employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers' responsibility.
The accounts do not directly address the question of when 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives vanished from the site sometime after early March, the last time international inspectors checked the seals on the bunkers where the material was stored.
It is possible that Iraqi forces removed some explosives before the invasion.
But the accounts make clear that what set off much if not all of the looting was the arrival and swift departure of American troops, who did not secure the site after inducing 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 nearby in Latifiya.
On Oct. 10, the directorate of national monitoring at the Ministry of Science and Technology notified the International Atomic Energy Agency that the explosives, which are used in demolition and missiles and are the raw material for plastic explosives, were missing.
The agency has monitored the explosives because they can also be used as the initiator of an atomic bomb.
Agency officials examined the explosives in January 2003 and noted in early March that their seals were still in place. On April 3, the 3rd Infantry Division arrived with the first American troops.
You forgot Poland!Originally posted by: her209
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Blame Russia, Blame France, Blame the UN, Blame Kerry, Blame Clinton
I love content-free, pompous replies like yours, NeoV. It reinforces my reasoning for despising the new liberals. :lips:Originally posted by: NeoV
CWJerome's take on this incident? "BBond says, "The explosives were there on April 10 when the first American troops went through al Qaqaa. They disappeared sometime after that."
How do you KNOW this? Explain. Prove they were there. Idoicy.
March 2003: The U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq.
April 2003: 101st stays at Al-Qaqaa, notices NO sealed explosives
After the invasion: The Pentagon said Monday that ''coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations. The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility, but found no indicators of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals.
So the material went missing some time before the invasion and prior to the US assuming control. Meaning:
· It might have been sold or used by Saddam's government prior to the invasion
· It might have been looted prior to the invasion
· It might have been looted prior to the US taking control
It was not stolen on the US's watch. More information will come out, the truth will come out, and the political ploy will to hurt Bush will fail, and -like I said- you will look dumb. There is so much documented info on this within the military... I'll accept their explanations of what they were doing in that area over that of what John Kerry says every time. There is no story here, just pure speculation by Bush haters. Laughable."
Care to make us look 'dumb' about this issue any further CWJ?
Any more Kinko's jokes Tasteslikefootinmouth?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I love content-free, pompous replies like yours, NeoV. It reinforces my reasoning for despising the new liberals. :lips:Originally posted by: NeoV
CWJerome's take on this incident? "BBond says, "The explosives were there on April 10 when the first American troops went through al Qaqaa. They disappeared sometime after that."
How do you KNOW this? Explain. Prove they were there. Idoicy.
March 2003: The U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq.
April 2003: 101st stays at Al-Qaqaa, notices NO sealed explosives
After the invasion: The Pentagon said Monday that ''coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations. The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility, but found no indicators of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals.
So the material went missing some time before the invasion and prior to the US assuming control. Meaning:
· It might have been sold or used by Saddam's government prior to the invasion
· It might have been looted prior to the invasion
· It might have been looted prior to the US taking control
It was not stolen on the US's watch. More information will come out, the truth will come out, and the political ploy will to hurt Bush will fail, and -like I said- you will look dumb. There is so much documented info on this within the military... I'll accept their explanations of what they were doing in that area over that of what John Kerry says every time. There is no story here, just pure speculation by Bush haters. Laughable."
Care to make us look 'dumb' about this issue any further CWJ?
Any more Kinko's jokes Tasteslikefootinmouth?
Originally posted by: NeoV
CWJerome's take on this incident? "BBond says, "The explosives were there on April 10 when the first American troops went through al Qaqaa. They disappeared sometime after that."
How do you KNOW this? Explain. Prove they were there. Idoicy.
March 2003: The U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq.
April 2003: 101st stays at Al-Qaqaa, notices NO sealed explosives
After the invasion: The Pentagon said Monday that ''coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations. The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility, but found no indicators of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals.
So the material went missing some time before the invasion and prior to the US assuming control. Meaning:
· It might have been sold or used by Saddam's government prior to the invasion
· It might have been looted prior to the invasion
· It might have been looted prior to the US taking control
It was not stolen on the US's watch. More information will come out, the truth will come out, and the political ploy will to hurt Bush will fail, and -like I said- you will look dumb. There is so much documented info on this within the military... I'll accept their explanations of what they were doing in that area over that of what John Kerry says every time. There is no story here, just pure speculation by Bush haters. Laughable."
Care to make us look 'dumb' about this issue any further CWJ?
Any more Kinko's jokes Tasteslikefootinmouth?
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I love content-free, pompous replies like yours, NeoV. It reinforces my reasoning for despising the new liberals. :lips:Originally posted by: NeoV
CWJerome's take on this incident? "BBond says, "The explosives were there on April 10 when the first American troops went through al Qaqaa. They disappeared sometime after that."
How do you KNOW this? Explain. Prove they were there. Idoicy.
March 2003: The U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq.
April 2003: 101st stays at Al-Qaqaa, notices NO sealed explosives
After the invasion: The Pentagon said Monday that ''coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations. The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility, but found no indicators of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals.
So the material went missing some time before the invasion and prior to the US assuming control. Meaning:
· It might have been sold or used by Saddam's government prior to the invasion
· It might have been looted prior to the invasion
· It might have been looted prior to the US taking control
It was not stolen on the US's watch. More information will come out, the truth will come out, and the political ploy will to hurt Bush will fail, and -like I said- you will look dumb. There is so much documented info on this within the military... I'll accept their explanations of what they were doing in that area over that of what John Kerry says every time. There is no story here, just pure speculation by Bush haters. Laughable."
Care to make us look 'dumb' about this issue any further CWJ?
Any more Kinko's jokes Tasteslikefootinmouth?
Um, Chicken - do you realized that you just attacked someone who took your side of the argument ?
Probably not, it's a comprehension thing.