The trail of the missing weapons....

I am a conservative republican, not thrilled with Bush but even less thrilled by Kerry, and a former Marine that used explosives and improvised weapons.
I keep seeing the news about the "missing explosives" and had to do some digging to find out what kind of explosives are missing. I found this...Napa Valley news service (http://www.napanews.com/templates/index.cfm?template=story_full&id=B9733D91-DB6C-40DF-8A44-EB07DF065163)
The weapons missing were HMX and RDX, both of which are granular (like corn starch). To remove 340 tons of this would require at least 30 50-foot grain haulers and semis. Dems, particularly Kerry, are saying that these materials vanished while coalition forces weren't watching yet the last report of them being there was by CNN on 1/24/03, 2 months before the US invasion. Our 101st Airborne division arrived there 4/10/03 and upon inventorying the sight against the UN reports found them to be missing and the IAEA seals were gone as well.
Point 1 - It's very possible the vaunted UN overlooked there removal before we arrived..

RDX and HMX are both grainular and must be manufactured with binders under close tolerances to create effective weapons.
HMX is short for "high-melting explosive" and is fairly inert without a detonator or primer. RDX is the base for military explosives like composition A, composition B, composition C, HBX, H-6 and Cyclotol. RDX is mixed with TNT to form HMX (Cyclotols) and is used for loading shaped-charge bombs, special fragmentation projectiles, and grenades. HMX is also used to detonate nuclear weapons! The Al-Qaqaa site was known as the heart of Iraq's nuclear development program and had other items like optics, lazers, and guidance equipment.
Point 2 - If the materias used to ignite the fissle material in a nuclear bomb are missing could other things, like WMD's, be missing too? Could ol' GW, and 8 foreign intel services, been correct about Iraqi WMD's??

The fact the UN didn't know what was going on is just situation normal.

The hubub about the missing material is the same as I've been asking for over a year. Those weapons were there. They aren't there now. Who has them. I'd be willing to put a sizable bet that they are in Syria.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

/\ Perfect, let's all assume their in some other country, giving another false reason to invade.
And soon, no more crazy Islamc terrorists!
:rolleyes:

/\ Perfect, let's all assume their in some other country, giving another false reason to invade.
And soon, no more crazy Islamc terrorists!
:rolleyes:


And the down side to that would be?

Perfect, let's all assume their in some other country, giving another false reason to invade.

I think you missed the point of point 2.... If these weapons are missing, and we know they were there in January, is it not possible for WMD's to be missing as well?? Despite Kerry's assertion that our military is incompetent I seriously doubt they would miss 30+ truckloads of explosives being moved out.

And the down side to that would be?
The art of SARCASM escapes you.

I think you missed the point of point 2.... If these weapons are missing, and we know they were there in January, is it not possible for WMD's to be missing as well?? Despite Kerry's assertion that our military is incompetent I seriously doubt they would miss 30+ truckloads of explosives being moved out.
First off, the military intelligence has sunk to a new low since they are flip-flopping between what they said in march of last year and what they are saying now. What weapons exactly? None of them turned up...they had so much "proof" they existed back in March 2003. Now your gonan tell me that they have "proof" it's in Syria or any other country?

Let's get one thing clear, if Bush wants to starft another war based on the "intelligence" he recieves, he's gonna have to really get in depth because no one is buying that BS again....At least we hope not to

Nobody said they have 'proof' that those weapons are in another country. However, its another indication that those weapons existed and were moved/hidden. They didn't just dissapear into thin air as you seem to believe.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

The art of SARCASM escapes you.

Humor must escape you! :iceslolan

Using Kerry's logic, why wasn't Roosevelt thrown out of office. He didn't know about Pearl Harbor until after the attack. It was HIS responsibility.

Using Kerry's logic, why wasn't Roosevelt thrown out of office. He didn't know about Pearl Harbor until after the attack. It was HIS responsibility.
THEN he dished out an unprovoked attack on Germany! Germany never did anything to us. Oh but Rosie was a Democrat. They can get away with that kind of stuff.

THEN he dished out an unprovoked attack on Germany! Germany never did anything to us. Oh but Rosie was a Democrat. They can get away with that kind of stuff.

Actually, Germany declared war on the US, supporting their ally, Japan. Why do you have to make every issue a partisan attack on democrats?

As for the unaccounted for WMD... For christ's sake, the weapons which were not destroyed under the watchful eye of the UNSCOM team would be completely inert by now. Harmless, expired.

You guys are still clinging to this absurd assumption that they smuggled the weapons out of the country? Come on, you expect me to believe that as the US military is massing forces on the border and making clear preparations to invade Iraq, countries like Syria and Iran are going to put themselves in the crosshairs by taking illegal arms? Any sizeable convoy would be easily detected, and it would take a sizeable convoy to move that quantity of arms.

You guys are still clinging to this absurd assumption that they smuggled the weapons out of the country? Come on, you expect me to believe that as the US military is massing forces on the border and making clear preparations to invade Iraq, countries like Syria and Iran are going to put themselves in the crosshairs by taking illegal arms? Any sizeable convoy would be easily detected, and it would take a sizeable convoy to move that quantity of arms.
So is it more likely for them to be removed before we attacked, or while we had thousands of men, vehicles, and surviellence aircraft in the area around Bagdad? Also, what happened to these explosives? Did they blow away in the wind? The Washington Post now has a story saying Russian special forces helped bury these and other weapons 1 week before the invasion. I find that alot harder to believe than having them shipped to Syria.

Using Kerry's logic, why wasn't Roosevelt thrown out of office. He didn't know about Pearl Harbor until after the attack. It was HIS responsibility.


different situation
roosevelt did know that japan was planning an attack on a us port, he and everyone in our military at the time just didnt expect the attack to be on pearl harbor, most of the other pacific ports were heavily guarded and prepared for an attack, but pearl harbor's location made it look like an unlikely target. He prepared for an attack, where as Bush chose to ignore the warnings of possible attacks. Whether or not he had reason to ignor them is your own opinion

He (roosevelt) prepared for an attack, where as Bush chose to ignore the warnings of possible attacks. Whether or not he had reason to ignore them is your own opinion
We had been constantly getting warnings of attacks for 10 years prior to 9/11, what made this one more credible? You make it sound as if he had specific information answering the 5-w's before the attack but I don't remember anything (beyond that from the typical conspiracy-wackos) that showed any detailed forwarning of what was being planned. Show me proof of any hard intel prior to 9/11 which would even begin to lead one's mind, in a discernable way, to what was coming.
Prove it and I'll vote for Kerry

Nobody said they have 'proof' that those weapons are in another country. However, its another indication that those weapons existed and were moved/hidden. They didn't just dissapear into thin air as you seem to believe.
Granted, now find some hard evidence to back your claims. I doubt any nation in their right minds will beleive the US without major proof. The type "documentation" that's provided will have to be more in depth. Pretty much, the States has to be 100% sure of this, because if they invade and no weapons turn out....somebody's got some esplanin ta do

We had been constantly getting warnings of attacks for 10 years prior to 9/11, what made this one more credible? You make it sound as if he had specific information answering the 5-w's before the attack but I don't remember anything (beyond that from the typical conspiracy-wackos) that showed any detailed forwarning of what was being planned. Show me proof of any hard intel prior to 9/11 which would even begin to lead one's mind, in a discernable way, to what was coming.
Prove it and I'll vote for Kerry

we do get lots of threats, but when a threat like sending an airplane through a building happens, it cant be ignored, it should stand out. bush has spent lots of time on vacation, like the month long one right before 9/11. north korea wanted to talk to us, and bush turned them down, good idea huh?. now they hate us with nuclear weapons capable of reaching our soil. bush needs to do a better job of working with other countries, and look into things more before attacking another country.

Vacation? You actually believe that a US President is out of touch when he's "vacationing?" Please tell me you're joking. You expect him to start flailing around in a panic when an emergency happens, maybe shit his pants? Wait, that's a Democrat.

we do get lots of threats, but when a threat like sending an airplane through a building happens, it cant be ignored, it should stand out..
Nowhere has anyone verified that we had specific threats concerning planes being flown into buildings. Where did you get that idea?

Bush has spent lots of time on vacation, like the month long one right before 9/11..
This vacation thing is silly.

north korea wanted to talk to us, and bush turned them down, good idea huh?. now they hate us with nuclear weapons capable of reaching our soil..
Kim Jong Il wanted to dictate his position to us, not talk. He has never attempted to extend any olive branches to the U.S.. He has so far only wanted to rattled his sword at us.

bush needs to do a better job of working with other countries, and look into things more before attacking another country.
The world's entire intelligence community needs to do better. Numerous countries had intel of his WMD's, not just ours.

Vacation? You actually believe that a US President is out of touch when he's "vacationing?" Please tell me you're joking. You expect him to start flailing around in a panic when an emergency happens, maybe shit his pants? Wait, that's a Democrat.

do you even know what your talking about?

do you even know what your talking about?
A sitting President doesn't "take a few days off from the world" as you seem to be implying.
Bush 41 was fishing for a week leading up to Desert Storm, but I doubt he was even baiting the hook!
When you get daily intel briefings, are surrounded by secret service, an army of advisors, and have any communications available you are on the job. Just because he is not in the oval office doesn't mean he won't take calls!!

I get the impression that there are some people who visit this site who will not accept that there were no WMD's until GWB knocks on their front door and tells them personally.Which is a shame,because despite every official UN AND US military inspection report that states conclusively that they didn't exist when Bush said that they did, Bush is too much of a chickenshit to admit that he blew it.

There obviously were weapons there. A local news crew from here in Minneapolis has video of some of those bunkers. Did anyone watch briefing today by the Pentagon. Obviously the democrates didn't because it would just prove that they're that much farther from the truth.

. Show me proof of any hard intel prior to 9/11 which would even begin to lead one's mind, in a discernable way, to what was coming.
Prove it and I'll vote for Kerry

Tell me again the exact title of the Aug. 6, 2001, intelligence brief.

"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."

That's 5 WEEKS prior to the death of thousands.Where was Bush in those 5 weeks? On vacation? The CIA gives him a briefing that warns of an imminent attack,and even goes so far as to NAME the man behind it,and what did he do? The commander-in-chief did nothing.

We'll never know if Bush could have prevented the worst terrorist attack in the history of the USA.

Mr Kerry will appreciate your vote,Murco. Mr Bush has already failed to keep you safe.

There obviously were weapons there. A local news crew from here in Minneapolis has video of some of those bunkers. Did anyone watch briefing today by the Pentagon. Obviously the democrates didn't because it would just prove that they're that much farther from the truth.

Thank you indyram, you just proved my point. Keep dreaming of WMD,because if anyone can't handle the truth,it's people like you.

I think you will find that the word of the Secretary of State for Defence outranks some crummy bunch of hacks from Minneapolis.Unless of course, you are determined to avoid the truth.

Yea, Honestly Murco, if you think that it wasn't Bush's fault that those 30+ truckloads were missing, you are mistaken, especially with 24 hour surveilance on Iraq, I think we would notice if they were gone. I think Bush made it seem like those weapons "dissappeared", or were "stolen by terrorists". Keep dreamin pal.

Tell me again the exact title of the Aug. 6, 2001, intelligence brief.

"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."

That's 5 WEEKS prior to the death of thousands.Where was Bush in those 5 weeks? On vacation? The CIA gives him a briefing that warns of an imminent attack,and even goes so far as to NAME the man behind it.
So that answers the first W - Who... The intel brief had none of the what, where, when, and why so what could be gleamed from this piece of info? Bin Laden had been determined to attack in the U.S. for years, this was nothing different...

if you think that it wasn't Bush's fault that those 30+ truckloads were missing, you are mistaken, especially with 24 hour surveilance on Iraq, I think we would notice if they were gone. I think Bush made it seem like those weapons "dissappeared", or were "stolen by terrorists". Keep dreamin pal..
If they were gone before we arrived and had that "24 hour surveilance", how is that Bush's fault?
And what scenario do you propose for the missing explosives?
I'm not following your logic...

A sitting President doesn't "take a few days off from the world" as you seem to be implying.
Bush 41 was fishing for a week leading up to Desert Storm, but I doubt he was even baiting the hook!
When you get daily intel briefings, are surrounded by secret service, an army of advisors, and have any communications available you are on the job. Just because he is not in the oval office doesn't mean he won't take calls!!

yea, thats exactly what im implying, taking a few days off from the world, come on, are you serious?

of course he takes call, but when your on vacation, its not as easy to focus on your work, and get everything done like you should if you were in the office. could of been why bush chose to ignore some of the warnings, cause he was too busy enjoying his vacation.

Nowhere has anyone verified that we had specific threats concerning planes being flown into buildings. Where did you get that idea?

bush recieved several warnings about this, have you even looked into this? he was warned of the possibility of terrorists using planes as missiles, and those middle eastern men who were in flight training possibly getting ready for an attack.


This vacation thing is silly.

i would rather have a president hard at work on more important things than taking a vacation.


Kim Jong Il wanted to dictate his position to us, not talk. He has never attempted to extend any olive branches to the U.S.. He has so far only wanted to rattled his sword at us.

north korea wanted to talk, it may have not been everything bush wanted, but its not like everything single thing wasnt gonna be his way. just cause it wasnt, he chose not to talk. he could of at least tried. this is a country with nuclear weapons, i wouldnt have turned them down so quick.


The world's entire intelligence community needs to do better. Numerous countries had intel of his WMD's, not just ours.

thats only suspecting they have wmd, you need hard evidence to go to war. like i said, bush needs to look into things more before attacking another country, and i think he needs to do a better job of working with other countries.

bush recieved several warnings about this, have you even looked into this? he was warned of the possibility of terrorists using planes as missiles, and those middle eastern men who were in flight training possibly getting ready for an attack.

The White House recieves several hundred warnings a day, not all of them reach the president. Of the ones that do reach the president are given a level of warning. The US government had no advance warning that was concrete enough to do something.


i would rather have a president hard at work on more important things than taking a vacation.

The president wheter democrat or republican doesn't punch in and out after 8 hours of work. Being president is a 7 day a week 24 hour a day job. The president doesn't have to be in the oval office to be working. What you call a vacation isn't what the president gets when away from the white House.


thats only suspecting they have wmd, you need hard evidence to go to war. like i said, bush needs to look into things more before attacking another country, and i think he needs to do a better job of working with other countries.

Refer to your first quote in this post. First you want the president to jump up and down with no intell and go after Osama now you are saying we shouldn't be attacking other countries without hard evidence. So which is it? France and Russia had hidden adgendas concerning Iraq and in no way would they of supported the US since they were selling banned and illegally to Iraq which I am sure the UN knew about. The UN also is corrupt in regards to the Food for Oil program.

The White House recieves several hundred warnings a day, not all of them reach the president. Of the ones that do reach the president are given a level of warning. The US government had no advance warning that was concrete enough to do something.
.

Ignoring a threat because you don't have enough information to act upon it is one sure way to leave yourself wide open to attack.The CIA is the best-resourced spy network in the world,and didn't do it's job well enough to prevent 9/11.I think you will find that the security services are far more efficient at acting upon intelligence these days...Hell, they're even tartgeting weblogs and sending the goons out to investigate anyone who posts unkind words about the coward in the White House...

http://www.livejournal.com/users/anniesj/331112.html

Perhaps if they had been a little more pro-active with the information that they received back in August 2001, US forces would not be proactively murdering so many Iraqi women and children now....

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=611455&section=news

The researchers did 33 cluster surveys of 30 households each, recording the date, circumstances and cause of deaths.

They found that the risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher than before the war.

Tell me again how stealing Iraq has made it safer for the average Iraqi. It's simply not true.

The White House recieves several hundred warnings a day, not all of them reach the president. Of the ones that do reach the president are given a level of warning. The US government had no advance warning that was concrete enough to do something.

refer to taranakis post on this paragraph.

The president wheter democrat or republican doesn't punch in and out after 8 hours of work. Being president is a 7 day a week 24 hour a day job. The president doesn't have to be in the oval office to be working. What you call a vacation isn't what the president gets when away from the white House.

oh i understand that, but being on vacation more than being in the office says something. if hes working so hard, why is he at his ranch? if he is there, he is playing on his ranch. thats not to say he isnt having meetings, and talking with his advisors, but he is obviously slacking to some degree. he wouldnt be there if he wasnt using his ranch.

Refer to your first quote in this post. First you want the president to jump up and down with no intell and go after Osama now you are saying we shouldn't be attacking other countries without hard evidence. So which is it? France and Russia had hidden adgendas concerning Iraq and in no way would they of supported the US since they were selling banned and illegally to Iraq which I am sure the UN knew about. The UN also is corrupt in regards to the Food for Oil program.

what are you trying to say?

The weapons making materials were there when we invaded, and now they are gone. Please, explain that.

The weapons making materials were there when we invaded, and now they are gone. Please, explain that.

So now you are saying there were WMD when we invaded. You really need to make up your mind.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

The weapons making materials were there when we invaded, and now they are gone. Please, explain that.
Wow, only 17 years old and you've outsmarted the entire U.S. military, department of defense, CIA, and NSA.
Could you share with us how you reached this conclusion? Impart your grand wisdom upon all of us!!

...so we are wrong for not acting on intelligence to stop 9/11...but we are also wrong for going into Iraq to stop Saddam...

THAT is dumb-ass logic if ever there was any!

No its not, pull your heads out of your asses, if we knew the weapon making material was there, why didn't we snag it before.

...so we are wrong for not acting on intelligence to stop 9/11...but we are also wrong for going into Iraq to stop Saddam...

THAT is dumb-ass logic if ever there was any!

Would be but for the fact that Bush also had intelligence that there were NO WMD's[a detail that proved to be accurate], but chose to ignore it because it didn't fit in with his planned theft of Iraq.

Would be but for the fact that Bush also had intelligence that there were NO WMD's[a detail that proved to be accurate], but chose to ignore it because it didn't fit in with his planned theft of Iraq.Please post a link to information saying that he knew that there weren't WMDs before the invasion.

Im wondering how those of you who are talking about the intelligence brief stating that Bin Laden was determined to attack using planes as missiles could have done any better. So basically we know some guys going to use planes as missiles. Do we know where? Nope. So guess what that means. We need to dispatch forces with stinger missiles around the entire country to intercept it. Do we know when? Nope. So we need to keep these forces in position 24/7? Could we even hold Middle Easterners for questioning or do background checks on them? Nope. It would infringe on their rights and make us racists. Lets face it logistically Bush did not have enough information to move, and if he did the only things that might help, he would have gotten smacked down for not being politically correct.

ever hear of an organisation called the UN,and a weapons inspector called Hans Blix?

ever hear of a weapons inspector called Hans Blix?
Yes, the half-assed replacement for Australian Richard Butler. Blix would never dare to push Saddam into allowing inspections! One month after he took over that post Iraq started resisting the inspection teams, remember that? He was the last person who should have been running that program but the crooked, corrupt Annan knew his Iraqi milk-money wouldn't be endangered by this pansy!

Yes, the half-assed replacement for Australian Richard Butler. Blix would never dare to push Saddam into allowing inspections! One month after he took over that post Iraq started resisting the inspection teams, remember that? He was the last person who should have been running that program but the crooked, corrupt Annan knew his Iraqi milk-money wouldn't be endangered by this pansy!

Unfortunately for your prejudice, he got his facts right, and Bush ignored them.

No he didn't. He was a pawn of the leftist UN.

Show me the WMD. Even Rumsfeld has admitted failure........or is he just a leftist pawn too.... :lol2:

They have just not found them yet...that is NOT failure. It is an ongoing task. There is a difference.

They have just not found them yet...that is NOT failure. It is an ongoing task. There is a difference.

Remember to repost this next year, and the year after, and the year after that.

THERE ARE NO WMD Bush fucked up.Get over it.

if we knew the weapon making material was there, why didn't we snag it before.
We had to wait while some French, German, and corrupt UN officials bilked the Iraqi people out of millions of aid through the oil-for-food program, while having a panzy named Blix tip-toe through Saddam's guided tour of Iraq doing "inspections."

...........Which came to exactly the same conclusion as those presented by the Secretary of State for Defence, but without having to kill hunrdreds of thousands of Iraqis.

So do tell, why did 1000 marines have to die and 7000+have to get maimed for life ?

Because Al-Qaeda and Saddam were linked. :rolleyes:
My goodness, Bush is an idiot.

Wait a minute...i'm confused...Why are we still debating what happened in the past, what we can't change. Shouldn't we all be debating on what needs to be done, or what we have to do to make the wrongs from the past right?? I mean honestly, Iraq had/didn't have, that fact is were in Iraq, soldiers are dying, and that's where out attention needs to be. Picking presidents is going to have to be like picking which one will get us out of this situation with as little scarring as there already has been, dont vote for your party, vote for the best guy.

We are debating the past because Bush is lying about it in order to secure enough votes to continue his crimes against the middle east.