Something to consider - RE missing explosives

[whosinpower]

We all know about the IAEA concerns regarding 350 ish TONS of high level explosives gone missing....but what about the Al Tuwaitha complex tht was also looted...that one DID have nuclear stuff, stuff that was well suited to making dirty bombs - and it all dissappeared after the invasion....

Ah well - that was not my real point - my real point is this - had the invasion been in conformity with explicit UN approval - there could of been a very good chance that the weapons would of been removed by the UN out of the country. Or - they would of been destroyed. The reality is that Bush overstepped the UN - causing them to leave with a job unfinished. I am well aware of the anti UN feelings in the US - but this is something to take into serious consideration.

Think I am naive?

[Kagemusha]

1. You're right on the facts but people wage war with the heart.

And so things like this get overlooked.

Remember, Saddam sharing explosives with terrorists was somehow believed to be worse than letting terrorists walk in and leave with the explosives without anyone's sharing them at all.

[knowbody0]

2. nay nay

you are using logic

[ewagner]

3. No, you raise a valid point

And there is another point to add to it.

This site, along with hundreds of others was WELL KNOWN to the UN weapons inspectors. If Dubya and his merry band of crusaders had actually cared about the proliferation of ABC or even conventional weapons in Iraq, they would have coordinated the invasion/occupation with UN weapons inspectors to inventory, account for and CONTAIN the weapons we already knew about.

Instead, we ignored them.

[bryant69]

4. Knid of makes you wonder if some of those weaposn were ever there

And what Bush and Company knew about the existance or non-existance of certain weapons.

I'm talking more about the nucular stuff here, not the conventional explosives (whcih he certainly did have).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Kagemusha]

5. The UN inspectors knew the facts. (And we had them penetrated)

No way these explosives weren't well known to US forces. But, well... remember, the slide for postwar plans wasn't there when its time came for Pentagon briefings of reporters. So the plans just never advanced far enough.

Because Rumsfeld barely believes in planning at all..

[whosinpower]

6. And here is someting I hear very very little about

But it gets to the real gist of the Iraqfiasco. When you take away all the rationale's for war justification we are left with one glaring logic...regime change period. We all know conclusively that Saddam did not have WMD or any ongoing WMD programs, or any formal plans to reconsitute WMD after the sanctions. We also know that he did not actively support Al quaida. So, we are left with regime change.

But here is an interesting thing that no one discusses - Saddam offered to step aside. He offered to have free elections under UN supervision. He offered just about anything to avert war. So....why did we not legitimate regime change through a democratic process????
I've done a little reading on this - and I have to say that we have been sorely misled.

America(make that the neoconservatives) wants to remake Iraq into a capitalists wet dream - a flat 15 percent tax, privatize EVERYTHING. Do you know why James Baker went all over the world trying to get Iraq's debt forgiven? It is not as altruistic as you might deem - it is because they want to privatize everything and existing debts could put a lien on assets.....we are enabling corporations of looting Iraq of its resources whilst claiming we are freeing them.

Here is an interesting article -

Adventure Capitalism - The Hidden 2001 Plan to Carve-up Iraq
TomPaine.com
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=383&row=0