Breaking Political Stories and Commentary. "We're at the height of the Roman Empire for the Republican Party, but the tide slowly but surely goes out." --Republican US Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
This is the big Iraq news of the day, high up at sites that rank stories by reader interest, although not higher than the Ashlee Simpson lip-syncing scandal -- "Lip-sunk" as the AM-NY daily put it.

Anyway, Bush's policies are less of a problem than his incompetence...

This is from the NY Times:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year.

[snip]

The bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound of the same type of material, and larger amounts were apparently used in the bombing of a housing complex in November 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the blasts in a Moscow apartment complex in September 1999 that killed nearly 300 people.

The explosives could also be used to trigger a nuclear weapon, which was why international nuclear inspectors had kept a watch on the material, and even sealed and locked some of it. The other components of an atom bomb - the design and the radioactive fuel - are more difficult to obtain.

[snip]

The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured, European diplomats said in interviews last week. Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded, beyond the fact that the occupation force was overwhelmed by the amount of munitions they found throughout the country.

[snip]

[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.

Comments (Page 5)
5 PagesFirst 3 4 5 
on Nov 01, 2004
I have reread section C and paragraph 12 in particular. This does not conflict with my statement above. You'll notice the statement "the destruction, the removal or the rendering harmless AS APPROPRIATE". It is considered unappropriate to destroy dual use items that are legit for other uses. These were tagged and carefully traced in order to render them harmless.

High explosives fall into this category.

Paul.
on Nov 01, 2004
I have reread section C and paragraph 12 in particular


12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above; to submit to the Secretary-General and the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution a declaration of the locations, amounts, and types of all items specified above; to place all of its nuclear-weapons-usable materials under the exclusive control, for custody and removal, of the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as provided for in the plan of the Secretary-General discussed in paragraph 9 ( above; to accept, in accordance with the arrangements provided for in paragraph 13 below, urgent on-site inspection and the destruction, removal or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items specified above; and to accept the plan discussed in paragraph 13 below for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of its compliance with these undertakings;

These were tagged and carefully traced in order to render them harmless


Let's assume that the specific explosives (nuclear-weapons-usable-material) which are a component of a nuclear devise were to be removed, destroyed or rendered harmless (even though it clearly states removed).

So are you saying that by locking the door, the IAEA rendered them harmless? Are these items now harmless? If they were rendered harmless, they can cause NO HARM. If they were "rendered harmless" would anyone have any concern over the items? This is clearly not the case.

The items under debate don't seem like dual use to me. I suppose you can argue there are civilian uses for the explosives. Although if that was the intent of the UN (that these items be considered dual use) I would consider it seriously flawed. I also can't see how this was a dual use facility, in was a munitions depot, "Dual-use" means that a facility has the potential to produce military as well as civilian goods (example: the "Baby Milk" factory). The facilities co-located with the depot made missles and did not produce anything of civilian use. The plant was known as Latifiya Explosives and Ammunition Plant al Qa Qaa. That does not sound dual use to me. I suppose the debate over "dual use" is fruitless.

Still, if the items were nuclear weapons usable does it not say they were to be removed? That's what I read. And if they were to be rendered harmless, well, it certainly doesn't seem to me they were or there would be no concern.


5 PagesFirst 3 4 5