From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3950493.stm)
From MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/)

I'm quite surprised that this hasn't been brought up yet. What's the reaction around the world?

Not much really, no one is surprised. I think it is a bit ironic, kinda like the US military thought: "Well, maybe we couldnt find any WMD's but we could just as well give them poor terrorists some regular weapons to even the score a bit." ;)

Ironic indeed. The complete lack of interest of the Bush administration in actually securing dangerous materials connected to the old, abandoned Iraqi nuclear program somewhat belies Bush's stated concern with Iraq's alleged weapons as a pretext for the war.

Incredibly, the International Atomic Energy Commission and European Union officials warned Bush before the war that these explosives needed to be safeguarded. But nevermind, it's just the silly naysayers bickering.

If Bush cannot even protect US troops from explosives at a sensitive facility in a country he had conquered, how is he going to protect the American public from terrorists who have not even yet been identified?

What's the point of bringing it up, (almost) no one in the US gives a damn anyway, and there's always a handy excuse to cover every Bush's blunder and/or to relieve him of any responsibility. Deja vu.

no one in the US gives a damn anywayThat's not true. I remember seeing that particular area from helicopter camera, that was surveying the site. It was literally a square kilometer of all kinds of bombs and explosive on crates.

We (Amerikans) were afraid to send in demolition teams because it could be booby trapped. And we had no idea how old and unstable some of those bombs were. And if you don't do a good job destroying it, there will be live ordinance scattered over a 10 or 20 square kilometer area. One day kids would have walked through it or be playing around it, and we'd get blamed for that.

Personally, I'd rather have had a few B-52's make a couple "carpet bomb" runs into the area, with all the fun-stuff. Cluster bombs and MOAB's and 2000lb'ers. You'd have shrapel everywhere, but that's the hell of cleaning up after any kind of armed conflict. The only people that have any business going around there are militants/terrorists, so I'd rather have made it that much more hazardous for them.

I honestly don't know why we didn't attempt to destroy it. They could have dropped bombs around the perimeter to throw as much as possible into the center, and then unleashed something really nasty like a fuel-air bomb (moab).

AN ENTIRE SQUARE KILOMETER. Jesus H. Christ...

eh... it made front page in ISU Daily, that count for attention? In addition, there is an opinion letter written about it on the same day, which is today.

i think we sort of becoming numb to this kind of stupid news coming from Iraq. Look at Ragusa's reply 3 short paragraphs, a few sentences, where are the multiple links to tons of addition material he used to do?

What's the point of bringing it up, (almost) no one in the US gives a damn anyway, and there's always a handy excuse to cover every Bush's blunder and/or to relieve him of any responsibility. Deja vu. My point in asking for international reactions is that this topic was rather hotly debated on the other, primarily American, board that I read, and someone there was asking for an international perspective on this missing material. If it really is in the hands of terrorists, it won't be only Americans who are victimized by its use.

Will blame be placed where it's due? Likely not. Does this mean that the majority of American citizens really and truly don't care? Hardly. Here's one who does. :rolleyes:

That much is a heck of a lot to get worried about, Tal. I'm sure the thought of another few hundred (or thousand) troops being sent home in body bags missing limbs might inspire a few people in the US to speak up.

If the Democrats wanted to, I'm sure they could turn this into a "Bush couldn't care less about the safety of your sons, husbands and brothers in Iraq" or a "Bush doesn't know how to protect his own troops" issue. Think of all the damage that much weaponry could cause and how vicious an attack could be with literally tonnes of weapons. Hell, just secure the damn things and you have less to worry about. But I'm sure violence prevention isn't a big part of the Bush administration's priorities...

teekc,
that's not so much a question of me ´getting numb but an effort to stay to principle "KISS" - you can't blame me for not making my point briefly. Having said everything that could have been said about it in three brief paragraphs is an achievement :shake:

But now that you ask for it ... ;)

I find it amazing that some 40 truckloads of high-performace explosives got stolen from under the nose of the ... not looking Americans -- and no one did notice anything of that happening.
That incident, however, gives hope to the WMD die-hards: When the US didn't notice that -- the Iraqis COULD have moved their WMD out to SYRIA! What more evidence do you need for another pre-emptive war :shake:

Besides Rally, I wouldn't so much worry about the stuff being shipped around the world to be used in terrorist acts. It's much more likely that it is used close to the source -- where you have (a) a demand (the Iraqi insurgency) and (b) an application (blowing up Americans).

A lot of the roadside bombs that have killed hundreds of U.S. troops and maimed thousands have been made of HMX and RDX, as suggested by how infrequently the guerrillas have blown themselves up in planting them. HMX and RDX are favored by terrorists and demolition experts because they are safe to handle -- chemically and mechanically stable and will only explode via a blasting cap, and of course because of their very high explosive energy.
That's why the US armed forces like both explosives too.

How could you blame the Americans for it anyway? If someone breaks into an old Soviet base and uses the weapons there to slaughter a villiage, are the Soviets to blame? If someone breaks into my house, steals my gun and shoots someone am I guilty of murder by association? I doubt the US Armed forces just left the explosives out in the open with a sign above saying "High Explosive Devices: Please do not steal! - By order"

You can't blame the president for these explosives going missing. You can only blame the people who were in charge of the security of said explosives. If someone steals a car is it the president's fault?

This is someone seriously blundering at the source. Whoever WAS the munitions commander in charge of those explosives made a very big screw up. It's not like a candy bar, you can't just shove it under your hat/turban and walk off. We're talking truck loads here...

Unfortunatly, the Americans can be blamed for this one. The people in charge of said explosives were those who were targeted and killed when the Americans first invaded. The survivers became the insurgents and they're doing exactly what Sadam trained them to do, kill stuff. Only now they've got back a lot of their old toys.

[ October 27, 2004, 05:43: Message edited by: Celesialraven ]

Abomination,
when your kid shoots another kid toying with your gun it IS your fault by association - you should have locked it away so it can't reach it. That is, you ARE responsible.

By invading Iraq Bush came to eventually 'own' (as Powell put it) that country and was responsible for securing all the stuff he proclaimed he did care for so much -- stuff related with Saddams old WMD programs.

The site was no ordinary junkyard, but a former nuclear weapons research facility, and US officials had been warned about these explosives. It is about neglegience in face of a known peril.

I mean, Bush declared to attack Iraq because allegedly Saddam wanted to give WMD to terrorists so that the US couldn't possibly wait any longer -- mind the mushroom cloud! -- only to allow 350 or so tons of explosives to be stolen out of one of Saddam's most sensitive nuclear weapons research facilities.
To get the picture of the scale of the incident: Imagine someone driving into Oak Ridge and haul some 350 tons of high performance explosives out of the facility ... unnoticed ... In the pretext of the war one should expected they were to be secured - but they weren't. I can't help asking why: Because of insufficient troop levels? Just a thought ...

And it is time for you to understand one thing: The commander in chief is always responsible. His aidees blundered the US into Iraq. And they didn't get that Iraq would not be a cakewalk but require a much larger number of troops. They merrily blundered on after their initial blundering. Cheney's fault? Rummy's fault? Wolfowitz' fault? Feith's fault? Sure, but also the fault of the idiot who allowed these fools their way and signed the orders based on which they blundered.
As a president you also bear responsibility for picking idiots as aidees.

PS: Newsflash
No orders to secure site, not enough troops (http://cbsnewyork.com/national/Iraq-Weapons-aa/resources_news_html)
Official statement: Hey, at least it weren't nukes! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3955007.stm)

[ October 27, 2004, 15:44: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

I still believe in the common sense of the American people.

My bet is that this is going to be a major influence on the outcome of the elections. If you're undecided and want a president that can protect your country, you are not going to vote for a president that isn't able to secure and guard a square kilometer of crates filled with dangerous material that can be used to blow up your fellow country men.

One of the most important themes during the campaign has been the 'commander in chief-skills' of both candidates. Bush has repeatedly said that he is a better commander in chief than Kerry. Who's going to believe him now?

Bush has repeatedly said that he is a better commander in chief than Kerry. Who's going to believe him now? The very same people who believed him last week, sadly. Failure after failure, lie after lie, misstep after misstep, excuse after excuse, without even an acknowledgement that things maybe, probably, possibly could've sorta been planned better from the Bush administration. But his supporters still think their guy is a hero, while the other, much more qualified guy can't be trusted. After all...he's "french-looking" and his wife is rich...which is far worse apparantly. :rolleyes:

Agreed. There are people so committed to Bush that there's no talking to them. Ironically, the people who seem to support him the most (generally speaking) are the ones that benefit the least from his policies such as the poor and the uneducated.

I know all the polls show this election to be a statistical tie, but I just have a bad, bad, feeling about this. I really think we are going to be stuck with Bush for another 4 years. Of course, in 2000, I was fairly convinced that Gore would win, so we can't put too much stock in my premonitions. Looking at the EC, it is definitely true that Kerry needs to win at least two out of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. And, if things don't quite break his way in a couple of other states, it's quite possible that he may need to win all three, and that's not likely to happen.

Actually, it's very likely. Kerry is above 50 in all 3 of those states according to a recent Quinnipiac study. I personally think he'll take all three. I also think the Bush camp agrees with that assessment, since they're spending so much time in Iowa these last few days.

Another tidbit to chew on, Aldeth...all polling from this time last year - and I'm talking ALL the major national polls - ALL had Bush winning by 2-10%. And he went on to lose the popular vote, then Florida happened. You can deduce 2 things from this fact. 1) The mainstream pollers skew more heavily Republican (Gallup does it blatantly), or 2) that polls don't mean sweet dick.

Democrats have been kicking the Republican's asses in new voter registrations in the swing states. Pollsters generally don't include college-age kids and cell-phone users, or first-time voters who registered this year. I understand your misgivings, as I've been having them like crazy over the last 2 months. But there are more reasons to be optimistic than you realize.

This story has huge political fallout here. This is working for Kerry at the moment. If he had more time, I think he could actually win this thing. And he has a good chance if things keep breaking his way this weekend.

DR - The three states are very close to call right now. If Kerry can win all three King George's lawyers are already on-site to start contesting every single vote. In this scenario I'm sure we will not have all this settled on Nov. 2. It may be months before Karl Rove and his goons are done with those three states.

Rove did the same thing with one of his guys in Alabama. It took him a year, but nonetheless he had an election overturned in the courts. Look for the same thing to happen again if Kerry eeks out a tiny victory in all three states. Shrub's guys are like the mafia, and they won't stop at anything for another coronation for their King.

Referencing the nearly 400 tons of missing explosive in Iraq, Bush said in a speech in Pennsylvania earlier today:

I want to remind the American people that if Senator Kerry had his way ... Saddam Hussein would still be in power, he would control all those weapons and explosives and could have shared them with America’s terrorist enemies. Oh yes, this is much better with Bush. Now, instead of the possibility of the weapons being in the hands of terrorists, and the possibility of these weapons being used against Americans, we instead have the extremely high probability that the weapons are in the hands of insurgents, and the extremely high probability that these weapons are being used against Americans. Another good call Shrub.

@ DR

The latest polls I've seen have Kerry with a decent lead in PA (just outside the poll's margin of error), and tiny lead in OH (within the poll's margin of error) and behind in FL (but within the poll's margin of error). I don't know how this is going to turn out, but one thing that is frustrating is I feel I have no input to help this race.

Now granted, I have a vote, and that vote will help Kerry, but the problem is I live in Maryland, which isn't a swing state. Maryland is going blue no doubt about it, so in a sense, my vote really doesn't matter. That having been said, I believe it is my American duty to vote, so I'll be there on November 2nd. DR and Chandros, you guys are in the same boat as you are both from Texas. There's no way in hell Texas is going blue. In a very real sense, it seems like your vote doesn't matter unless you live in PA, FL, OH, or one of a handful of other swing states.

Exactly. But I'm voting anyway. I have to. The popular vote does count for something, regardless. A little something, but it's good enough for me.

Oh yes, I will definitely vote also. I consider it an honor to vote against Bush. Kerry may not have been my first choice, but he's far better than the alternative. In my estimation, Kerry rose quite a bit as a result of his strong performance in the debates. The missing explosives have only proved the point he's been making over the last month: Bush has no idea what the hell he's doing, and he has made us all less safe as a result of his incompetence.

And here I am, stuck in PA, forced to vote for a candidate I don't like in an effort to make sure the guy I don't like even more doesn't get the job. Even if there was a third party candidate I liked 100%, it wouldn't be right to waste my precious vote that way. :(

You know, at this point I'm wishing I could vote for Carey. Well, them's the breaks with absentee voting.

Rally - I empathize. My vote is relatively meaningless, as California is blue, too, but I'm voting for Kerry as the lesser evil. My parents (in NY) will do the same. I have some cousins and other family in Florida who will actually count, so I get to blame them and their friends if Bush wins (for some reason, they think he's good for their wallet -- I don't see it).

No one so far has noted Bush's delightful answer to the missing weapons debacle: he blames Kerry! Clever fella, him. It's a great tactic; identify your weak points/mistakes, and blame them on your opponent. Thus, it's Kerry who creates a "climate of fear". But I don't think it's going to bite this time; I think Bush is in trouble, knows it, and is lashing out desperately. The new Guantanamo prison torture scandal won't help him either, if it breaks big enough. Don't just hope; work.

I really hope Kerry will keep hammering on the missing explosives these last days before the election. It just totally proves what he's been saying for the last few weeks: Bush is incompetent as a commander in chief and didn't plan the war in Iraq carefully since he had no plan to 'win the peace' and now the US suffers because of it and the world (and the US) still isn't any safer.

It may be that the people who already support Bush won't change their vote, but I really think this will have a big impact on the undecided voters. This is of course very important now this election looks like a draw so far.