For the math-challenged in the audience, the amount of munitions we've already destroyed or have secured would be the weight equivilant to 162,359 Hummer H2's all lined up in a row out in the desert. :eek: Yeah, OK so we've got another 0.0009 to find and destroy ....... :rolleyes: and then continue looking for whatever else is buried out there or already trucked over to Syria ...... :cool:

When it comes to comparing regular munitions and plastic explosives by weight you are comparing apples to oranges. The supermajority of the weight of a shell or bomb is due to its metal casing.

A stash of plastic explosive is light yet deadly. Even a paper thin sheet could kill a man. Add some nails and other shrapnel to a couple pounds of the stuff and you have a very effective roadside bomb.

Could you kindly provide me where you got this information that 405,898 tons of munitions destroyed or secured for destruction?

<i>"our guys have destroyed and/or secured for destruction 405,898 tons of munitions"</i>

..... which naturally begs the question: is our world a safer place because it no longer has 405,898 tons of munitions?


cooly: did you actually read the article? :confused:

lol oops.

I read my NY Times article (link above) which was more detailed, but didn't mention that.

Thanks.

(you should read that one as well, it gives the history of these weapons, etc...pretty detailed)

Why would the New York "All the news that's fit to print" TIMES, forget to mention this?

Next question. This stuff has been missing for over 1 1/2 years. Why is it being brought up like new information? This is old news.

According to the Times article, Condi was informed within the past month...which leads me to believe that we didn't know 1 1/2 years ago, but only recently....


The White House said President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was informed within the past month that the explosives were missing. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed. American officials have never publicly announced the disappearance, but beginning last week they answered questions about it posed by The New York Times and the CBS News program "60 Minutes."

CNN reported that these were missing before May 1st, 2003.

Again. Why is this being brought up now? Why is this _one_ site more important than the 10,000 sites that were secured? What is special about this site? Are there other caches of explosive that have not been discovered? Of course there are. Saddam was like the Ant, except with explosives.

This is not new NEWS. This is old NEWS. Why is it being brought up now?

I guess it's being brought up now because Condi, et. al just found out about it.....that's my guess anyway.....

I would presume it's newsworthy because the IAEA publically warned about this specific site. I don't understand why the CIA would deem this "medium security?"

I guess some other sites, considered even a higher priority, weren't secured either. (Hope they secure those sites fast :) )

I heard on the news today that the story had been covered up until recently.

Our government is pretty good at keeping something under wraps long enough to where it becomes old news. When it does are we are just supposed to ignore it?

Even if the exact timing of this story is suspicious a fact is a fact and these facts expose yet another example of extreme incompatance on the part of the bush administration.

You just don't _want_ to see. You cannot or do not want to see it for what it is. Look at the timing. Hmmmm. Why would the NYT publish it now? What is Special about this site?

The type of Explosives? Nope. TNT is only slightly less explosive.

Where? Nope.

How much ? Nope. As was shown above, this is a tiny fraction of what has already been detryoed.

So. What does this mean in terms to the war in Iraq? Probably not much. Could these materials been moved before the war, hidden away, and are now in Secured stockpile? Certainly.

Why make a big deal about this now?

What could have been the motive?

I guess it's being brought up now because Condi, et. al just found out about it within the last month, not 1 1/2 years ago, she just found out, hence newsworthy.

Let me ask you this, if they found something about Kerry now, do you think it would not be reported?

Good Job. Try Change the subject. Redirect.

No. Why is this topic being brought up now? It is not being said the insurgents have the explosives. They are unaccounted for, just like the WMD material that the IAEA also knew about. You know, that is unaccounted for too...

Why is this being brought up now?

Ok....

I guess it's being brought up now because Condi, et. al just found out about it within the last month, not 1 1/2 years ago, she just found out, hence newsworthy.

Because it's NEW news. Just discovered.

Because the media is sensationalistic, and if they found some dirt on Kerry, you'd be damn sure we'd be hearing it too.

Not trying to change the subject, just trying to put it in perspective.

Or do you think it's all some sort of conspiracy?

You are so funny.

Why would the NEW YORK TIMES write about this subject now?

I can cut and paste this all night if I have to. but I won't.

Ok then.....

Why would the media put so much effort into the Swift Boat Vets?

Same thing...sensationalism.

But the Bush administration would not allow the agency back into the country to verify the status of the stockpile. In May 2004, Iraqi officials say in interviews, they warned L. Paul Bremer III, the American head of the occupation authority, that Al Qaqaa had probably been looted. It is unclear if that warning was passed anywhere. Efforts to reach Mr. Bremer by telephone were unsuccessful.

But by the spring of 2004, the Americans were preoccupied with the transfer of authority to Iraq, and the insurgency was gaining strength. "It's not an excuse," said one senior administration official. "But a lot of things went by the boards."


Early this month, Dr. ElBaradei put public pressure on the interim Iraqi government to start the process of accounting for nuclear-related materials still ostensibly under I.A.E.A. supervision, including the Qaqaa stockpile.

It's NEW NEWS. They couldn't report this last month, in September, or in August, because they know for sure only now.

Another Subject change, but then you never actually answer a question.

A small (on the scale of what Iraq has/had) cache of weapons and explosives. It was known where it was maybe in Jan 2003, but it is not known where it is now. There is no information presented showing that these explosive are now being used or they are in the hands of the insurgents, just implied.

So, again, why would the NEW YORK TIMES bring this up now? Hmmmm?

If you screw up, blame it on the liberal media. They're making these things up to influence the election. In reality, Iraq is a joyful country, with people thrilled that the US is there.

no kidding beethoven. I guess new news that couldn't be reported in September or August isn't good enough. I guess they should've reported something in September that they just found to be confirmed in October.

They should've had ESP.

I'm done.