THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Perhaps the concern I read about was their potential use in a nuclear program as a propellant explosive?

Ticomaya
This has been written time and time again and you probably would have seen it if you were not so busy reading and spouting republican lies and propaganda.

These explosives were not judged to be illegal since they could be used for peaceful purposes. Such as construction. They were not the vaunted WMD's that the Bushites and the UN had deemed illegal.

We by all accounts were, as usual in Iraq, asleep at the wheel letting them fall into the hands of the insurgents. For that is where they undoubtedly are. And no amount of lies, distortions or propaganda from the republicans and their constituents will change that fact.

harmless construction explosives

I think most would not define these weapons as WMD technically. However, John Edwards is going around spouting how one pound of that stuff could bring down an airliner. There are 76 MILLION pounds in 380 tons. The implication from the Kerry campaign is that Bush in fact did put WMD into the hands of terrorists. Of course the fact there was no WMD is why Kerry now says he wouldn't have invaded as there was no need. Of course if he hadn't invaded, we wouldn't know the stuff was missing. Or what it was being used for.

Is the hippocrasy here apparent to anybody but me?

Ticomaya wrote:

harmless construction explosives

Why are we all so concerned about these explosives, if they are simply harmless construction explosives, like you might find down the street?

Is the hippocrasy here apparent to anybody but me?

... All sources knowledgeable sources are reporting that the were still there when the American forces arrived. ...

Einherjar wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

harmless construction explosives

I don't understand why you're rolling your eyes.

I'll explain, it was because of the harmless explosives bit. Explosives, even if intended for civilian purpouses, are not harmless in the hands of those whos intentions are not.

Ticomaya

That is far from an incorrect statement. Read the statements of the commander of the forces that first arrived on the scene and the imbedded reporter. In fact aside from the republican loyalists I haven't seem very much coming out of the administration in rebuttal. They have been pointing at the 400,000 tons of explosives and ammunition that they have distorted. Inferring that the 400 tons are just a drop in the bucket. That drop is no doubt what the insurgents are dipping into to bomb the crap out of our convoys.

... All sources knowledgeable sources are reporting that the were still there when the American forces arrived. ...

Gelisgesti wrote:

You responded to a sarcastic post I made to a different post so your post is out of context to my post ....... pluuuus, your post is factually incorrect as the described find is not considered WMD.

W.M.D. n : a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons) [syn: weapon of mass destruction, WMD, W.M.D.]

I understood you were probably being sarcastic. I was not. I'm suggesting the explosives that went missing are seriously dangerous explosives, not garden variety. Are you claiming your point is different that mine?

Or are you just upset that I called you wrong?

Was Saddam permitted to produce and possess this type of explosive under UN resolutions? I have been lead to believe he was not. If not, it is evidence of yet another example of his intentional violations of UN resolutions.

Foxfyre: Thanks for that link ...

Quote:

Kerry and Edwards say that Bush didn't do enough to prevent the disappearance of the explosives, which could be used against Americans here at home. But the very existence of such explosives -- whether defined as weapons of mass destruction or not -- was the reason Bush led the nation into Iraq in the first place.



Why did we invade Iraq? Specifically, so dangerous weapons would not be used against us here at home -- either by Saddam Hussein's forces or by his terrorist friends. Did we miss some of these weapons? Of course. But we got a lot more than we would have gotten if we had not gone into Iraq in the first place.

Exactly.

What I am claiming is that you took my post and misrepresented it to read 'WMD' ..... thee author of the post that I quoted made the statement that the dump in question could be found all over Iraq, probably in a weak effort to minimize its importance .... hence my sarcastic comment calling the 'common garden variety'. You introduced WMD, to serve whatever your argument was. (read the original post)
Upset? Wrong? I was neither.
It is a common practice around here to rewrite a post to fit the personal view of the poster and bolster their argument, a non productive practice I might add.

The explosives that went missing are very bad stuff, and this underscores what a bad man Saddam was, that he could not be trusted, and that he had intentions of acquiring WMD.