du7st Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Good intentions but horrible execution. IAEA Says Tons of Iraq Explosives Missing By WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria - Several hundred tons of conventional explosives are missing from a former Iraqi military facility that once played a key role in Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s efforts to build a nuclear bomb, the U.N. nuclear agency confirmed Monday. International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei will report the materials' disappearance to the U.N. Security Council later Monday, spokeswoman Melissa Fleming told The Associated Press. "On Oct. 10, the IAEA received a declaration from the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology informing us that approximately 350 (metric) tons of high explosive material had gone missing," Fleming said. "The most immediate concern here is that these explosives could have fallen into the wrong hands." In Washington, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry (news - web sites)'s campaign said the Bush administration "must answer for what may be the most grave and catastrophic mistake in a tragic series of blunders in Iraq (news - web sites)." "How did they fail to secure ... tons of known, deadly explosives despite clear warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency to do so?" senior Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart said in a statement. The Iraqis told the nuclear agency the materials had been stolen and looted because of a lack of security at governmental installations, Fleming said. "We do not know what happened to the explosives or when they were looted," she told AP. Nearly 380 tons of powerful explosives that could be used to build large conventional bombs are missing from the former Al Qaqaa military installation, The New York Times reported Monday. The 380 tons is the U.S. equivalent of the figure of 350 metric tons mentioned by the Iraqis, the IAEA said. The newspaper said they disappeared after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq last year. The explosives included HMX and RDX, which can be used to demolish buildings, down jetliners, produce warheads for missiles and detonate nuclear weapons. HMX and RDX are key ingredients in plastic explosives such as C-4 and Semtex — substances so powerful that Libyan terrorists needed just 1 pound to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 170 people. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleeza Rice, was informed of the missing explosives in the past month, the report said. It said Iraq's interim government recently warned the United States and U.N. nuclear inspectors that the explosives had vanished. "Upon receiving the declaration on Oct. 10, we first took measures to authenticate it," Fleming said. "Then on Oct. 15, we informed the multinational forces through the U.S. government with the request for it to take any appropriate action in cooperation with Iraq's interim government." "Mr. ElBaradei wanted to give them some time to recover the explosives before reporting this loss to the Security Council, but since it's now out, ElBaradei plans to inform the Security Council today" in a letter to the council president, she said. Before the war, inspectors with the Vienna-based IAEA had kept tabs on the so-called "dual use" explosives because they could have been used to detonate a nuclear weapon. Experts say HMX can be used to create a highly powerful explosion with enough intensity to ignite the fissile material in an atomic bomb and set off a nuclear chain reaction. IAEA inspectors pulled out of Iraq just before the 2003 invasion and have not yet been able to return despite ElBaradei's repeated urging that the experts be allowed back in to finish their work. ElBaradei told the U.N. Security Council before the war that Iraq's nuclear program was in disarray and that there was no evidence to suggest it had revived efforts to build atomic weaponry. Al Qaqaa, a sprawling former military installation about 30 miles south of Baghdad, was placed under U.S. military control but repeatedly has been looted, raising troubling questions about whether the missing explosives have fallen into the hands of insurgents battling coalition forces. Saddam was known to have used the site to make conventional warheads, and IAEA inspectors dismantled parts of his nuclear program there before the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites). The experts also oversaw the destruction of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons. The nuclear agency pulled out of Iraq in 1998, and by the time it returned in 2002, it confirmed that 35 tons of HMX that had been placed under IAEA seal were missing. HMX and RDX are the key components in plastic explosives, which insurgents have widely used in a series of bloody car bombings in Iraq. "These explosives can be used to blow up airplanes, level buildings, attack our troops and detonate nuclear weapons," Lockhart said. "The Bush administration knew where this stockpile was, but took no action to secure the site. They were urgently and specifically informed that terrorists could be helping themselves to the most dangerous explosives bonanza in history, but nothing was done to prevent it from happening," he said. "This material was monitored and controlled by U.N. inspectors before the invasion of Iraq. Thanks to the stunning incompetence of the Bush administration, we now have no idea where it is," Lockhart said. He demanded the White House explain "why they failed to safeguard these explosives and keep them out of the hands of our enemies." ElBaradei told the United Nations (news - web sites) in February 2003 that Iraq had declared that "HMX previously under IAEA seal had been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives, primarily to cement plants as a booster for explosives used in quarrying." "However, given the nature of the use of high explosives, it may well be that the IAEA will be unable to reach a final conclusion on the end use of this material," ElBaradei warned at the time. "A large quantity of these explosives were under IAEA seal because they do have a nuclear application," Fleming said Monday. The nuclear agency has no concrete evidence to suggest the seals were broken, Fleming said, but a diplomat familiar with the agency's work in Iraq said the seals must have been broken if the explosives were stolen. ___ On the Net: IAEA, www.iaea.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brown 43 Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 I thought they didn't have WMD's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 based on the definition that this admin used going in. They didn't. This is just a huge amount of conventional explosives. Every country could have tons of TNT. We all know that if this was under the WMD umbrella....... the admin would be screaming from the Mtn Tops right now that they existed recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 I thought we turned everything over to the IRAQI people and we were there for security purposes.. Who was in charge of the cache of weapons.. If it was the Coalition then yes, its our fault. If it was the Iraqi's then it's a problem but shouldn't be blamed on us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Bad for security in Iraq, but it has ZERO impact on "feeling safer" here. Conventional explosives are not difficult to acquire. Moving large quantities of them into the country and getting them to the target is the difficult bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Didn't you watch Fight Club? They were making all sorts of bad stuff in bathtubs. wait...... I forgot about the 1st rule of Fight Club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
du7st Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 Bad guys with explosives = bad Bad guys with more explosives = worse Stop the excuses - it's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickfox45 Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Originally posted by Son of Sniglet Didn't you watch Fight Club? They were making all sorts of bad stuff in bathtubs. wait...... I forgot about the 1st rule of Fight Club incidentally, you also forgot about the 2ND rule of fight club too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Originally posted by Zen-like Todd Bad for security in Iraq, but it has ZERO impact on "feeling safer" here. Conventional explosives are not difficult to acquire. Moving large quantities of them into the country and getting them to the target is the difficult bit. The article says... Libyan terrorists needed just 1 pound to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 170 people. Do you really think it is that hard to sneak a pound of this stuff into the country? And the fact that most cargo in airplanes is not screened makes this a scary scenario. The lack of postwar planning in Iraq is pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 I don't see this as a possible threat for domestic security, but definitely for the troops. If you go to the Washington Post and read the list of deceased soldiers from Iraq, within the last few months, most of them have been KIA by roadside munitions. Thus, I can see the stolen explosives being used for that purpose, as well as some of the suicide bombings. So much for improved security in Iraq.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 How can we know if these caches of explosives were even their when our troops went in. The military released today, that each one of the locations was searched within hours of the invasion and nothing was found. Remember, Sadaam had a long time to hide stuff from the coalition. Don't you remember the buried aircraft? I imagine burying explosives would be a bit easier. More Lefty spin without real facts beyond assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Anyone have a timeline as to how long these explosives have gone missing? Is this just a 11th hour election suprise or did they just find out about the stolen munition? I'll bet you dollars to donuts that this is story at least 12 months old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Originally posted by Thiebear I thought we turned everything over to the IRAQI people and we were there for security purposes.. Who was in charge of the cache of weapons.. If it was the Coalition then yes, its our fault. If it was the Iraqi's then it's a problem but shouldn't be blamed on us... From the article... "Al Qaqaa, a sprawling former military installation about 30 miles south of Baghdad, was placed under U.S. military control but repeatedly has been looted" I guess it's our fault. But at least we protected the oil fields! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Originally posted by portisbowwow Anyone have a timeline as to how long these explosives have gone missing? Is this just a 11th hour election suprise or did they just find out about the stolen munition? I'll bet you dollars to donuts that this is story at least 12 months old. So that would make it better somehow, that this is old news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gstahl Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Originally posted by Baculus I don't see this as a possible threat for domestic security, but definitely for the troops. If you go to the Washington Post and read the list of deceased soldiers from Iraq, within the last few months, most of them have been KIA by roadside munitions. Thus, I can see the stolen explosives being used for that purpose, as well as some of the suicide bombings. So much for improved security in Iraq.... but... If this is not a threat to our security then I would expand this to mean that really nothing short of having an actual chemical/nuclear/biological weapon that can attack us would be a threat. So I would then need to forget administration claims that terrorist are in Iraq and that they can be a threat to the US. naaaa... I really think that Iraq likely has now become a terrorist ammo dump due the lack of security and the ease at getting and moving weapons. We have the left overs from what was the world's 3rd largest (if I remember correctly) standing army available without much security for months and months. Do I feel safer with GW in charge? Personally I do not. Why should I think that the administration would be able to keep whoever has this high explosive from using it on US interest including targets here after the administration could not keep it safe in it's storage site (which no matter how you slice it or who is in charge of it, is of interest to the US). BTW look up HMX, seems it is very hard to come by very powerful and used in things like our SLAM-E (stand off land attack missile extended range). HMX is nasty stuff... "HMX is produced at military arsenals and is used as an explosive in military munitions." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Originally posted by portisbowwow I'll bet you dollars to donuts that this is story at least 12 months old. Great. Give me the money. The International Atomic Energy Council just reported it. The Bush administration was briefed on Oct. 15 (confusingly, though, Rice was informed "days later," and she "informed Bush"--which would mean that Bush was informed several days after his "administration" was). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Originally posted by Brown 43 I thought they didn't have WMD's? Are you being deliberately dense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Originally posted by du7st Bad guys with explosives = bad Bad guys with more explosives = worse Stop the excuses - it's that simple. Here? Worse here? How exactly? Are you suggesting that terrorists in the middle east can't get their hands on explosive material? Because for us to feel "less safe", that would have to be the case. And as anyone who picks up a papers knows, conventional ordinance is easily obtainable throughout the middle east for absurdly low prices. Stop making ridiculous assertions - it's that simple. Use your head, its actually a pretty handy device. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Originally posted by Zen-like Todd Here? Worse here? How exactly? Are you suggesting that terrorists in the middle east can't get their hands on explosive material? Because for us to feel "less safe", that would have to be the case. And as anyone who picks up a papers knows, conventional ordinance is easily obtainable throughout the middle east for absurdly low prices. Stop making ridiculous assertions - it's that simple. Use your head, its actually a pretty handy device. I'm sorry, are you arguing that this is no big deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Originally posted by JimboDaMan I'm sorry, are you arguing that this is no big deal? Can you read? If so, you wouldn't have needed to make that post. Read my two posts in the thread. They are very clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Originally posted by Zen-like Todd Can you read? If so, you wouldn't have needed to make that post. Read my two posts in the thread. They are very clear. Read 'em again. Still sounds like "no big deal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Originally posted by JimboDaMan Read 'em again. Still sounds like "no big deal". Reading comprehension time. Bad for security in Iraq, but it has ZERO impact on "feeling safer" here. Conventional explosives are not difficult to acquire. Moving large quantities of them into the country and getting them to the target is the difficult bit. What do you think that statement means. Meanwhile, I'm sure you're all too happy to ignore the obvious attempt at fear mongering that drove this thread, with a subject intentionally chosen to miscast the event. But that's a different deficiency altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
du7st Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 Originally posted by Zen-like Todd Reading comprehension time. What do you think that statement means. Meanwhile, I'm sure you're all too happy to ignore the obvious attempt at fear mongering that drove this thread, with a subject intentionally chosen to miscast the event. But that's a different deficiency altogether. Wow you are just out of control arrogant. It usually takes being someone important to get to your level. What exactly did I miscast with my headline? I find it stunning that so many people are holding onto this idea that Bush is better for national security and making them "safer." I have no doubt that Bush really wants to protect America and its citizens but stories like this keep on coming. For every success there seems to be a case where our efforts backfire. It's not enough to have good intentions - you have to succeed. Trying to create some world where every guy in the world can get his hands on C4 is ludicrous. It is NOT like going into a drug store and getting tylenol no matter how much you want us to believe it is. What a weak, weak argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Originally posted by du7st Wow you are just out of control arrogant. It usually takes being someone important to get to your level. What exactly did I miscast with my headline? I find it stunning that so many people are holding onto this idea that Bush is better for national security and making them "safer." I have no doubt that Bush really wants to protect America and its citizens but stories like this keep on coming. For every success there seems to be a case where our efforts backfire. It's not enough to have good intentions - you have to succeed. He HAS succeeded. There has not been 1 attack, major OR minor, on US soil since 9/11. How much more successful do you want? Of course, Bush gets ZERO credit for that, right? Like it just happened by sheer blind stupid luck. Not ONE of his actions since that day have a damn thing to do with the fact that we've not suffered another attack. If you want to bash him over his decisions on the Iraq war, thats fine. But you can't ignore what by any logical standard would be an astounding success....we haven't been attacked once since 9/11. And I don't see how an explosives heist on the other side of the world changes that. Believe me, if they are planning a major attack on us, they aren't going to use explosives nabbed in Iraq to carry it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 LOL I'm sorry, du7st, but this thread title is stupid. It has almost zero relevance to the domestic security situation. And don't pretend that wasn't what you were referencing in a threat titled OPENLY to the forum "Still feel safer?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.