Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (19459)	10/27/2004 1:22:07 PM
From: Karin	Respond to of 90947

Missing Ammunition... Here's a bit more for what it's worth - the US had requested that the IAEA destroy those explosives in 1995, but the IAEA refused, carrying the Iraqi claim that the explosives had civilian purposes (that is the reasoning behind dual use in the first place). Then, there's an issue that you miss: Following the first Gulf War, the International Atomic Energy Agency put the Qaqaa cache under seal, where it remained until U.N. inspectors were kicked out in 1998. Upon the inspectors' return in late 2002, some 35 tons of HMX were found to be missing; the Iraqis claimed some of it had been removed for civilian use. That's the last we know of their whereabouts. According to a Times source, U.S. troops "went through the bunkers, but saw no items bearing the IAEA seal." NBC News, which was embedded with the 101st Airborne when it arrived at Al-Qaqaa on April 10, 2003--the day after the fall of Baghdad--also reports this week that back then it found no sign of the explosives either. Stands to reason: Of course Saddam would remove his precious HMX from its last known location before U.S. cruise missiles could find it. So, of the 380 tons, 35 tons (about 8.5% of the total) was already gone without any idea where it went in 2002. So, of the 380 tons, we're down to 345 tons. And the inspectors flew the coop once the US invaded in March 2003. US forces entered the facility on April 10, and found that there were no traces of the explosives at that point. Now, there's still the possibility that the explosives were hidden somewhere else on the grounds (which were huge), but the more likely scenario is that they were carted off by the Iraqi forces before the war started without the IAEA knew - and Blix, Kay, Duelfer, and even Baradei had said that Iraq was acting behind the inspectors back to move stuff and thwart inspections at every turn. Oh, and speaking of Baradei, he's likely the guy who put forward this story in the first place as revenge for the US seeking to replace him with someone more effective - considering that the IAEA has failed in Iran and North Korea to stop proliferation and those nations' nuclear programs, not to mention the failure to even notice Libya's nuclear ambitions. Then, there's his links with Iran - the US thinks he's helping the Iranians obtain nukes while thwarting the nonproliferators: On Monday, a spokesman for the American mission at the United Nations questioned the timing of the release of the material on the part of Mr. ElBaradei. Rick Grenell told the Sun's Benny Avni the "timing seems puzzling." After a behind-the-scenes battle inside the State Department this summer, the Bush administration opted to reject Mr. ElBaradei's bid for a third term as director general of the atomic energy agency. At the time, Washington was collecting intelligence - disputed by some agencies - that Mr. ElBaradei was providing advice to Iran on how to avoid sanction from his organization for its previously undisclosed uranium enrichment programs. rogerlsimon.com

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (19459)	10/27/2004 1:41:55 PM
From: cirrus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I never said Saddam had no connection to terrorism. It's impossible to prove a negative so I cannot say that. What I am saying is that those connecting Saddam to terrorism present a weak, circumstantial case at odds with everything we know of Saddam.... certainly not enough of a case to justify a $200 billion war and 7,000 American soldiers dead and injured. Saddam was evil, no doubt, but there is no verifiable evidence that he ever participated in a terror attack against the United States. Well before the video tapes of bin Laden boasting of his planning the 9/11 attacks were were found in Afghanistan, America had sufficient evidence to convince the world of bin Laden's guilt. Why was it so hard to convince the world with respect to Saddam and WMD or terror? Because, no matter how one cuts it, the evidence wasn't there.