Weapons Equipment Missing in Iraq

[ZanypherCocoapuffs]

It is amusing that nutjobs from either side don't see the hypocrisy in not taking the similar positions on the danger Saddam presented and the danger an unknown party with the exact same stuff presents.

A fair question. I rationalize that by saying that if it is looters, then they're probably not organized enough to create something dangerous from it and certainly don't have the money to pay for it.

Moreover, hiding something like that intact as it was before is pretty tough.

I just think that "in random hands" it's a little less dangerous then in an obvious madman's hands. Honestly it could end up in worse hands, but that's just a speculative as my assumption that it's not in any worse hands.

[Eidolon Faer]

First of all, the liberal line that "Zomg! Bush lied there never were any WMD's! Blood for Oil! Konspiracy! /faint" is logically inconsistent with the position that anything, anywhere in Iraq was remotely close to being a WMD.

Since you now are screaming that there WERE WMD's present, you must concede that Bush's stated reason for the invasion is, in fact, legitimate.

Furthermore, Ddrak's line that as long as the UN, incorruptible paragons of virtue that they are, was monitoring the sites, everything was safe as houses is bogus. As early as 1997, Saddam had been breaking UN seals on the bunkers at Al Qa Qaa and doing the Curley Shuffle with the explosives therein.

http://www.hri.org/cgi-bin/brief?/news/ ... .undh.html
Iraq has returned high explosives it ha ... wing day.

Give me a break. like a strip of tape was gonna keep Saddam out of his own weapons bunkers if he ever decided to use them.

[Eidolon Faer]

First of all, the liberal line that "Zomg! Bush lied there never were any WMD's! Blood for Oil! Konspiracy! /faint" is logically inconsistent with the position that anything, anywhere in Iraq was remotely close to being a WMD.

Since you now are screaming that there WERE WMD's present, you must concede that Bush's stated reason for the invasion is, in fact, legitimate.

Furthermore, Ddrak's line that as long as the UN, incorruptible paragons of virtue that they are, was monitoring the sites, everything was safe as houses is bogus. As early as 1997, Saddam had been breaking UN seals on the bunkers at Al Qa Qaa and doing the Curley Shuffle with the explosives therein.

http://www.hri.org/cgi-bin/brief?/news/ ... .undh.html

Iraq has returned high explosives it had removed from the Al Qa Qaa facility, according to the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
In a letter to the United Nations Secretary-General, Mohamed Elbaradei says that in accordance with its notification of IAEA, Iraq had removed IAEA seals from five of the six high-explosive bunkers at the Al Qa Qaa facility and dispersed approximately 50 tonnes out of a total of 228 tonnes of high explosives (HMX) to other locations at Al Qa Qaa. Mr. Elbaradei says that IAEA inspectors have witnessed the return of this material to its original storage location and have taken measures to account for the original inventory. "There are no indications that any of this material has been diverted", the IAEA Director-General says.

In addition to these activities, other IAEA personnel and experts from United Nations Member States have serviced and upgraded the video surveillance systems at two facilities. They have also carried out an extensive campaign for the collection of environmental samples.

The IAEA Director-General says that the agency has directed is resources towards verification of the status of critical dual-use equipment.

On 25 November, the IAEA team was temporarily increased to 12 persons in order to restore the technical basis of the IAEA's monitoring and verification activities as quickly as possible, says Mr. Elbaradei. Since that time, he points out, the Nuclear Monitoring Group has carried out more than 42 inspections at 40 locations, some of which have been inspected more than once.

Following an impasse caused by Iraq's objection to the United Nations weapons inspectors, IAEA inspectors returned to Baghdad on 21 November and resumed their inspections the following day.

Give me a break. like a strip of tape was gonna keep Saddam out of his own weapons bunkers if he ever decided to use them.

(fixed the quoteblock for readability)

[Ddrak]

Eid,

The conservative line of "Zomg! There were WMD! But now they are missing they aren't a problem" is just as bogus. Like I said - the nuts on both sides are being proven hypocrites by their actions on this one.

Sensible people recognize that these chemicals were not WMDs but their disappearance is a problem (though not as major as some people are crying). As has been said before, it's highly unlikely Bush "lied" but was simply misled by an overzealous intelligence operation that was trying to prove a case rather than find facts.

It was terribly nice of you to offer a new strawman too, because I've never stated inspections are meant to keep anything "safe", nor did I offer the idea that the UN was in any way incorruptible. You are obviously under the misconception that monitoring is equivalent to enforcement. This is rather obviously not true - they are completely separate issues.

In actual fact, I recognize the fact that the inspection system was failing and have stated this many times. The fact that you still don't want to listen to what I write but would rather make things up to argue against really just shows your blatant disregard for any sort of truth in your crusade to vanquish the mythical opponents you create in your mind.

So, the "strip of tape" was never physically keeping Saddam out of anything, nor was it ever intended to. Please quit posting stupidity.

Dd

[Kulaf]

Umm.....where in that report did it say any chemicals are missing? All I see if missing hardware which likly was chopped up and sold as scrap......if it even is missing.

Amazing how many people suddenly want to trust satalite photos of these sites......but didn't believe other satalite photos.

[Relbeek Einre]

Other satellite photos showed like a warehouse and Colin Powell saying "THIS WAREHOUSE IS FULL OF ANTHRAX NO RLY~". The photos didn't support the claims.

[Kulaf]

Ok so you think all of this material was sitting outside in the open?

[Relbeek Einre]

Hail, a False Dichotomy. You're really good at those, Kulaf, it seems to be your primary style of argumentation.

I'm saying that the satellite images did not confirm or refute the claims made, so they weren't to be "believed" or "disbelieved."

[Kulaf]

Well if you actually ever took a position and said what you think I wouldn't have to use them to dig. I still from what you have stated don't know whether you are talking about past satalite photos or the photos claimed in the article in the OP.

Trying being a bit clearer and I won't have to probe for your opinion.

[Relbeek Einre]

Amazing how many people suddenly want to trust satalite photos of these sites......but didn't believe other satalite photos.

What "other satalite[sic] photos" did you mean?

[Kulaf]

Hail, a False Dichotomy. You're really good at those, Kulaf, it seems to be your primary style of argumentation.

I'm saying that the satellite images did not confirm or refute the claims made, so they weren't to be "believed" or "disbelieved."

Which are you referring to?

[Relbeek Einre]

The only "disbelieved" satellite photos I can think of - the one Colin Powell presented to the UN.

[Kulaf]

Hence my question. If you believe the photos in the OP why not the photos Powell presented? Surely all of this equipment that is missing was not just laying around in the open.

[Relbeek Einre]

If I showed you a picture of a bottle in Rush Limbaugh's hand and told you that oxycontin pills were stashed in that bottle, would you believe or disbelieve the picture?

Now, because you're being thick, I'll answer it for you: The picture isn't what you'd disbelieve, it's me. The picture proves nothing other than that Rush Limbaugh held a bottle.

Likewise, the satellite photos Powell showed to the UN proved nothing other than that such and such a building existed in Iraq. The photos don't show the building's contents. I didn't believe or disbelieve the images. I disbelieved Powell.

[Kulaf]

So then you don't believe the photos in the OP correct?

[Ddrak]

Umm.....where in that report did it say any chemicals are missing? All I see if missing hardware which likly was chopped up and sold as scrap......if it even is missing.

My apologies. I did assume badly. Makes the "see there were WMD" and "see the US let WMD go" crowds even more batty if it was only hardware.

Dd

[Relbeek Einre]

Haven't seen them. I assume they show items that were once at a particular location are now gone - and I believe that's the case. Their disposition has yet to be determined, and I see no one making any definitive claims about that.

[Kulaf]

But you just insinuated it was a question of trust. So do you trust the claims the former inspectors are making based on satellite recon?

[Eidolon Faer]

Ddrak --

Now we're getting somewhere.

First of all, thank you for admitting that the whole "Bush lied, people died" thing is a load of crap. I never specifically accused YOU of having used it, but it's most definitely a meme floating around out there, and this latest flap demonstrates its' absurdity with great elegance.

The conservative line of "Zomg! There were WMD! But now they are missing they aren't a problem" is a nice strawman you've made up to argue against me. Hypocrisy duly noted and laughed at. My point was an emphatic agreement with your own statement that one cannot have it both ways.

Now, I don't claim to speak for all conservatives everywhere, and I happen to have a background in chemical engineering that is a bit better than the average layperson, or even average news reporter.

Now while "Sensible people recognize that these chemicals were not WMDs but their disappearance is a problem (though not as major as some people are crying)" is certainly one possible thing "sensible people" can believe, it is far from the only conclusion "sensible people" can draw.

For my own part, I suspect that the bulk of the so-called "dual use" material that everyone has been concerned about was originally intended for weapons use when it was made, and the "dual use" thing was only a pretext used to give a thin veneer of respectability to Saddam's unabated manufacture of WMD's. Simply put, there are better and cheaper alternatives for the "legitimate" uses of too many of the chemicals Saddam chose to stockpile for it to be totally a coincidence, or so it seems to me.

Furthermore, since "sensible people" are in emphatic agreement that the inspection system was failing and that the UN seals were not physically a barrier to Saddam accessing his stockpiles, can we also agree that something that is dangerous in the hands of unknown people is at least as dangerous in the hands of a known villain?

I never said I was happy -- or even unconcerned -- with the fact that these materials have gone missing. It's a matter of some concern. But that concern only underscores my conclusion that we took the correct course of action in invading Iraq. The stuff that's gone missing is a miniscule fraction of all the material we've found, and we've destroyed hundreds of times what has gone missing.

If one truckload of stuff is a matter of concern (which I agree with you, it is) than a thousand truckloads of material should be a thousand times as disconcerting, no? It's a difficult job and given the way Saddam scattered and hid his stockpiles of weapons throughout the country, it seemed a remote possibility that we'd ever find everything down to the last bullet and Anthrax spore. But every one we find and destroy is one less to worry about.

So yes, I'm not happy that there is stuff missing. But one can also choose to look at it as a glass half full, so to speak. Rather than blast Bush about it, I would prefer to simply investigate the matter, find out what went wrong, and do what we can to improve the situation. This is too important for partisan bickering.

[Ddrak]

Eid,

I "admitted" the whole Bush lied thing a while ago, I think in a discussion with Kulaf. Bob Woodward's book pretty much tipped me over the edge - perhaps a more accurate representation would be "Tenet lied, People died"?

Likewise, I never specifically accused you of the statement I attributed to conservative nutjobs. Rush most definitely did say it in his gleeful liberal-bashing though and I think most of us on this board can happily write him off as a conservative nutjob.

I think you missed the part where I was wrong about it being chemicals missing, but merely equipment.

I also think using the obvious failure of inspections to immediately validate a war is foolhardy - it does no such thing. It merely invalidates the continuation of simple inspections and to jump from there to war is a false dichotomy.

The rest of your discussion is very hyperbolic. There is no evidence of "unabated manufacture of WMDs". In fact, there's no evidence of any sort of WMD manufacture. There was no goal to restrict Saddam's access to his "stockpiles" of chemicals which had other uses than WMD, simply to account for his use of it. Inspections provide that. What was dangerous was unaccounted use of those chemicals - which was indeed happening under Saddam and hence my advocacy of moving on from inspections.

Let me know when they find the "last Anthrax spore" too - in fact, let me know when they find the first one.

Finally, I concur - rather than blast Bush about it, I would prefer to simply investigate the matter, find out what went wrong, and do what we can to improve the situation.

Dd