WAR: Professional Arms Looting in Iraq

Source: New York Times
including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms,

I believe it is well known that Saddamn had parts that could be used in a WMD. Hell, any middle eastern country that is anybody has something that can be construed as a component of a WMD. Bush lied about Iraq's possession of functional WMD's. Bush started war under false pretentions. Part of the reasoning behind the imposition of our forces in Iraq was to prevent any remnants of the Iraqi empire get into the hands of 'evil-doers.' Bush's eloquent words, not mine. It would appear that one of three things has been made true by this news story.

1) The Bush Administration lied about the priority regarding the prevention of weapons caches falling into those who wold use it for terrorism. If the maintenance of a post-saddamn Iraq was as important as stated a million times in a million different ways, there would have been military appropriations made with regard to all weapons stations. Militarily speaking, to neutralize an enemy is to disarm and take away. It would appear that the military has failed in a fundamental concept of war.

2)The weapons were permitted to walk away. That would mean that the weapons were left unguarded and an adequate amount of intel was recieved, planned and then acted upon by what the news article states as a highly organized operation. How many 'highly organized operations' exist over there? And how many of those are against the U.S.? If they had the time and resources to incorporate cranes into there 'looting', then they have resources to begin with.......etc, etc,etc. What strikes me is that there were components to some hard hitiing weapons and they were unguarded enough to walk away......

3)This is a fabricated news story meant to provide enough information for the reader to infer that terrorists have gotten away with weapons that could be used against us.........the story is about an isolated facility that is not immediatelyu identified with current U.S. operations(duh, because it should have been secured the first week of invasion) and as such does not necassarily undermine the U.S. effort(unless you're me, who sees a million problems with this). So we potentially have a propaganda piece that suggests 'a victory' for the bad side without the 'defeat of the good side.' Nothing has changed. War still going on. We'll keep you updated for more 'good and bad things.'

This entire story is screaming "Something wrong with this picture"................

Umm, aiiight,
Maybe this:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 12 - In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments on the looting.

The Iraqi official, Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry, said it appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants in search of valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away.

Dr. Araji said his account was based largely on observations by government employees and officials who either worked at the sites or lived near them.

"They came in with the cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites," Dr. Araji said. "They knew what they were doing; they knew what they want. This was sophisticated looting."

The threat posed by these types of facilities was cited by the Bush administration as a reason for invading Iraq, but the installations were left largely unguarded by allied forces in the chaotic months after the invasion.

Looting at Iraqi Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Official Says

Still reading like a change of strategy: one from saying Bush lied about WMDs (or components thereof) to one of "Bush let the stockpiles and materials get away."




seekerof

[edit on 14-3-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof

Still reading like a change of strategy: one from saying Bush lied about WMDs (or components thereof) to one of "Bush let the stockpiles and materials get away."

Bush told so many different stories it IS hard not to get confused, I know seekerof. ...BUT - pay attention now - Bush said there were actual WMDs and an active weapons building program, not just the facilities and parts.

Everyone knew the installations were there - but Iraq said they'd stopped making weapons - and the UN weapons inspectors confirmed this, and also said no WMDs existed in Iraq.

There is no contradiction except perhaps in your intent:

...You are trying to create confusion and claim contradiction where none exists.


Deny ignorance. Deny bias.


.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Still reading like a change of strategy: one from saying Bush lied about WMDs (or components thereof) to one of "Bush let the stockpiles and materials get away."

I maintain that the Bush Administration lied about the WMD's. Components of a WMD could realistically be a screw......not saying that's what it is, I'm stating the range of interpretation.

Maybe I should start from square one........why would the weapon stockpiles be left unguarded? The last paragrapg in your quote attributed it to the 'ensuing chaos'. That implies a failure in execution, does it not? We had plenty of time to plan for the invasion.....why would something like placing american military resources at the weapons pile be something subject to an oops?

There's one major FACT that seems to be over looked here. Sadam USED WMDs on his own people. He used gas on Iranian forces and he gassed Kurdish village. They have found IED made out of saran gas shells. To say that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq is just devoid of in rational thinking and shows a complete disregard of the facts.

This very story invalidates the idea that anyone was lying about Iraq besides sadam. Furthermore, why would he bribe UN inspectors if he was so innocent?

As for those "monitored" sites, etc., there are a few unanswered questions regarding them:

....Today, much of the world has concluded that Iraq's erstwhile arsenal of illegal weaponry was not an imminent threat to regional or international security. But as late as May 2003, U.N. inspectors catalogued an array of chemical and biological agents, munitions and missilry that they believed might still be in the country.

The existence of these unresolved issues cannot be taken lightly. Until the weapons are secured, or until it can be proved that they no longer exist, the distinct threat remains that they could be used. Thus, it is imperative that former U.N. inspector David Kay, who is leading America's present search for the weapons, answer the questions that have been posed....

One:

1. VX

The inspectors never could figure out what happened to 3.9 tonnes of VX, the deadliest kind of nerve gas. Iraq admitted producing VX in 1988 and 1990, but furnished no convincing evidence that it was destroyed in 1991, as Iraq claimed. This failure was not cured by an Iraqi report handed to inspectors in March 2003, which attempted to account for up to 63 percent of the missing VX.

Two:

2. Anthrax

The inspectors concluded that Iraq may not have destroyed about 10,000 liters of the biological agent anthrax, which if properly stored, could still be viable. Iraq admitted producing 8,425 liters of anthrax, but claimed it had disposed of all the agent in 1991, and provided inspectors with a series of technical reports aimed at substantiating the claim. However, the reports failed to prove exactly how much anthrax was disposed of.

Three:

3. Other Germ Warfare Agents

Iraq did not explain what happened to thousands of liters of other biological agent that it admitted producing, including more than 340 liters of clostridium perfringens - though inspectors concluded that Iraq had enough growth medium to have made "much larger quantities." This agent would still be viable today if properly stored. The inspectors were also unable to account for some 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin and at least 2,200 liters of aflatoxin. Neither of these agents would be viable today, but accounting for them is necessary to determine the total amount of germ agent and the individual amounts of each agent that Iraq produced.

Four:

4. Chemical and Biological Munitions

Iraq consumed 6,526 fewer chemical-filled aerial bombs - containing some 1,000 tons of agent (mostly mustard gas, but also sarin and tabun) - during the Iran-Iraq war than it claimed, according to the "Air Force document" handed over by Iraq in December 2002. Moreover, inspectors could not account for 550 mustard-filled artillery shells that Iraq claimed to have lost. The inspectors determined that Iraqi mustard gas was still of a very high quality. Also unaccounted for are 29 germ-filled bombs, some possibly containing anthrax

Five:

5. Missiles

The inspectors were in the process of destroying illicit Al Samoud 2 missiles and related equipment but were unable to complete the task before the start of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Twenty-five missiles are still in the country, along with 38 warheads, 6 launchers, 6 command and control vehicles and 326 engines.

Iraqi Weapons: Five Unanswered Questions

Know anything about these and where they can be?
If you do, please notify the UN and the US, and Coalition, so that they can be accounted for.

as posted by soficrow
Deny ignorance. Deny bias.

Woooowzers.
Coming from you, oh my....."deny bias"? Would that be the same as deny objectivity?





seekerof

[edit on 14-3-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Know anything about these and where they can be?
If you do, please notify the UN and the US, and Coalition, so that they can be accounted for.

We might if the U.S. military hadn't left weapons sites unguarded due to 'the chaotic months after.'

Originally posted by soficrow

Bush told so many different stories it IS hard not to get confused, I know seekerof. ...BUT - pay attention now - Bush said there were actual WMDs

No he never said that sadam HAS/HAD WMDs, He said it was a "Gathering Threat" and I challenge you to produce any CREDIBLE evidence to refute me.

Originally posted by soficrow

Everyone knew the installations were there - but Iraq said they'd stopped making weapons - and the UN weapons inspectors confirmed this, and also said no WMDs existed in Iraq.

The same UN inspectors who were bribed? So you are now saying the facilities were there huh soficrow? Again I point out that these were the same facilities that were suppose to be dismantled after the first Gulf War. The very fact that these facilities were still there when President Bush made the decision to invade is JUSTIFICATION for the invasion. He was breaking the cease fire agreement.

Originally posted by soficrow
There is no contradiction except perhaps in your intent:

...You are trying to create confusion and claim contradiction where none exists.


Deny ignorance. Deny bias.

My friend your entire post is a contradiction of itself.

Let me get this straight. Sadam had no WMDs and no way of making WMDs but the facilities to make the WMDS that he didn't have was looted after the US invaded Iraq. OK clear as mud...


[edit on 14-3-2005 by Moon Puppy]

See let me guess MemoryShock, its ALL the US's fault, eh?
No mention and acknowledgement from you that the Russians may have moved materials and components or WMDs out of Iraq prior to the war?
No mention by you of those reports that looting of sites by Iraqi soldiers during the war?
No mention of sourcings that indicate that such materials and components, as with possible WMDs, may have been moved to Syria (Bekaa Valley) or Iran?

Too many past articles for you to simply dismiss and then place the full blame on the US. But please, accordingly, you believed Iraq had NO WMDs or components and materials thereof, and yet, now you say that it was the US's fault that they are unaccounted for? No sir! They were unaccounted for prior to the war.

Which is it? Saddam had them or didn't?



seekerof

[edit on 14-3-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Moon Puppy

Let me get this straight. Sadam had no WMDs and no way of making WMDs but the facilities to make the WMDS that he didn't have was looted after the US invaded Iraq. OK clear as mud...

Read the article - or play your games. Doesn't really matter IMO. The world will turn either way and anyone with half a brain caught on long ago.

Originally posted by soficrow


Read the article - or play your games. Doesn't really matter IMO. The world will turn either way and anyone with half a brain caught on long ago.

You are right, I just wonder why you haven't caught on yet...

soficrow you didn't answer my challange, you said

Bush said there were actual WMDs

If you can't provide proof of this then wouldn't that make you a liar?

See how easy they (the liberal establisment) can do this?

Double post, my bad

[edit on 14-3-2005 by MemoryShock]

Originally posted by Seekerof
See let me guess MemoryShock, its ALL the US's fault, eh?

Point 1. The U.S. invaded Iraq. For whatever reason. Btw, chemical/biological weapons are a given from the Gulf War. I believe the WMD specification is more referenced for nuclear potential.....

Point 2. The U.S. had ample time to prepare for the war. Regarding our previous engagement, the intel on Iraq should have been kept up and intently looked over.....If we didn't know about all weapon stockpiles, then we knew most of them, including the one that was just looted so nonchalantly. How else could it make it to the news? Besides, the weapons stations were left unguarded because apparently, we were unprepared for the 'chaotic months.'

Originally posted by Seekerof
No mention and acknowledgement from you that the Russians may have moved materials and components or WMDs out of Iraq prior to the war?

I can play the what if game to.......

Originally posted by Seekerof
No mention by you of those reports that looting of sites by Iraqi soldiers during the war?

Allow me to ask again.........why are Iraqi soldiers getting access to weapons that should have been immediately secured?

Originally posted by Seekerof
No mention of sourcings that indicate that such materials and components, as with possible WMDs, may have been moved to Syria (Bekaa Valley) or Iran?

If you were reading my posts correctly, you would have noticed that my points weren't centered on the existence of WMD's. I made my assertion, and it is based on the administrations constant controversy, as well as the lack of materialization of these WMD's. Sure they could have been moved.......is there actual proof of that? No. Then allow me top offer a hypothetical concession.......there were WMD's in Iraq and in January, aliens stopped time to move them away, thus securing Bush's debatable credibility. The stopped time also explains why nobody knows and there exists no proof.........

Originally posted by Seekerof
No sir! They were unaccounted for prior to the war.

And these unaccounted for weapons were just traipsed off with under the U.S.'s nose? They were unaccounted for before and during, and now we have a news report stating that some unknown entity just got away with them? Does anyone else see what is wrong here?



[edit on 14-3-2005 by MemoryShock]

[edit on 14-3-2005 by MemoryShock]

Originally posted by Moon Puppy
soficrow you didn't answer my challange, you said

Bush said there were actual WMDs

If you can't provide proof of this then wouldn't that make you a liar?

See how easy they (the liberal establisment) can do this?

Moon Puppy, sit down and let the grown up's talk.

Bush's speech to the UN in September
In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Please, if you have nothing to add to this debate, refrain from doing so.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Source: Washington Post

According to records made available to The Washington Post and interviews with arms investigators from the United States, Britain and Australia, it did not require a comprehensive survey to find the central assertions of the Bush administration's prewar nuclear case to be insubstantial or untrue. Although Hussein did not relinquish his nuclear ambitions or technical records, investigators said, it is now clear he had no active program to build a weapon, produce its key materials or obtain the technology he needed for either.

In October of 2003, WMD's were nuclear and Saddamn had none.

[edit on 14-3-2005 by MemoryShock]

Originally posted by Seekerof
No sir! They were unaccounted for prior to the war.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
And these unaccounted for weapons were just traipsed off with under the U.S.'s nose? They were unaccounted for before and during, and now we have a news report stating that some unknown entity just got away with them?

It's a shame this thread got mixed up in the old debate of 'did he or did he not have WMD's.' The fact that weapons stockpiles were allowed to be looted is an indication of irresponsibility on behalf of our military...........of course everything isn't america's fault, however, a military excursion is an important undertaking and it would appear that we have a situation that shows a fundamental oversight.........

[edit on 15-3-2005 by MemoryShock]

Originally posted by MemoryShock

It's a shame this thread got mixed up in the old debate of 'did he or did he not have WMD's.'

It's the old distract and redirect gambit. [yawn]

The fact that weapons stockpiles were allowed to be looted is an indication of irresponsibility on behalf of our military....

Thus the gambit. Wouldn't want that to get out, now would we? ...Never mind take it a step further and speculate that such looting might have been planned as part of the corporate rape and pillage strategy from the get go.


.

Originally posted by soficrow
It's the old distract and redirect gambit. [yawn]

I hear that......

Originally posted by soficrowp
Thus the gambit. Wouldn't want that to get out, now would we?

That's the dissappointment..........we have a forum set up where candid discussion of the inconsistencies/consistencies of our world can be discussed. This doesn't happen anywhere else. This should be a place where liberals try on conservative views and right wingers take a look at the possibility that God doesn't dictate the political agenda......it's an anonymous forum that should stimulate the discussion process.......I don't understand the need for someone I don't even know to find it so important that I think like he/she does.......if I did, there wouldn't be much for us to talk about........

Deny Ignorance is an abused phrase around here.......Maybe we should start with 'Deny run-of-the-mill'...........

[ Originally posted by soficrow
...Never mind take it a step further and speculate that such looting might have been planned as part of the corporate rape and pillage strategy from the get go.

If you've read any of my posts, you know that I advocate at least a speculation along these lines........One my favorite points is that The uber-rich class cares about the working class only so far as there needs to be one......

[edit on 15-3-2005 by MemoryShock]

Originally posted by Moon Puppy
No he never said that sadam HAS/HAD WMDs, He said it was a "Gathering Threat" and I challenge you to produce any CREDIBLE evidence to refute me.

Here's a few quotes with sources:

House.gov

* “We know where the [WMD] are.” – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, (ABC “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” 3/30/03)

* “We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” – Vice President Cheney (NBC “Meet the Press,” 3/16/03)

whitehouse.gov
“There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more…Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.” – Secretary of State Colin Powell

whitehouse.gov
“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” – President Bush

whitehouse.gov
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” –Vice President Cheney