The Iraq thread 4

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]How many out of how many captives were abused?

Does that matter ? It happened and it were not single cases.

Documented cases in Iraq alone range between 100 - 300 cases. And that´s just what we know.

Quote[/b] ]The team had already recorded testimony from over 50 former detainees, detailing severe abuse, rape, torture, humiliation, and religious degradation allegedly committed throughout the network of US-run detention centers and prisons in Iraq. In August, Akeel and his investigative partner, Mohammed Alomari, also revealed what appears to be the systematic targeting of religious inmates, as well as the rape of a 15-year-old boy by his captors as late as July 2004.

Iraq Torture Investigators Reveal Scores of New Cases

Also read the ICRC report from february 2004, if you can´t remember :

ICRC report on abuse and torture in Iraq

Excerpt:

Quote[/b] ]

Certain CF military intelligence officres told the ICRC that in their estimate between 70 and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake. They also attributed the brutality of some arrests to the lack of proper supervision of battle group units

Quote[/b] ]And I still don't know how you know that all of them were "not part of a war-party".

I´m talking of POW´s and civillians as the report does.

I could aslo quote the whole report if you want to...

I wonder when you will come up to debate the WMD issue again. You seem to like running in circles....

[denoir 0]

I agree with everything you say about AJ, maybe only slightly to a slightly lesser extent.

To get a taste of "modern" anti-west Arab democracy to come, read this:

I think it is interesting to see the historical development of the anti-western islamist movement over the last 20 years. The movements that we see today have their roots in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. During the war, Arab islamists considered fighting the Soviets to be a primary goal and lots of would-be fighters traveled from all around the Mid East to Afghanistan.

When the Soviets withdrew, they were convinced that they were the ones that had defeated the evil - although in reality it was Afghans all along that had done the actual fighting, not Arabs. With the Soviets gone, the Arabic islamist movement in Afghanistan was divided into two factions. Both had the objective to remove the corrupt Arab leaders and to introduce islamic states in the Arab world. The larger faction advocated a non-violent approach. They were against western influences and against democracy as a form of government, but they were willing to go along the existing path to get to power. Their idea was to rally the people and to come to power by peaceful means. Killing civilians was a big no-no.

The second faction argued that the political systems in the Arab world were corrupted and that the people were corrupted by western ideals as well. There had to be a violent revolution and that it was the only way to wake muslims up and see how corrupted they have become by western liberal values.

So when the Afghanistan war ended, most of the Arabs that were in Afghanistan moved back to their countries with the goal to get regime changes. And in the early 90's it looked like they would succeed. The more moderate movement was gaining political support with the population. In Egypt and Algeria it looked like they would come to power.

The governments in those countries faced the dilemma of either banning parties that had strong popular support or to hand over power to people that intended to dismantle the whole system. They chose the former and banned the islamistic parties and arrested lots of their members. At this point the radical factions started their work by attacking western tourists, killing politicians etc The muslim populations were however disgusted by the wave of violence and support for the islamist movements vanished. Facing this, the radicals concluded that the people had been corrupted as well, and should be considered targets. This reached horrifying proportions. In Algeria tens of thousands of innocent people were slaughtered. The radical islamists would raid villages and cut the throats of women and children. They argued that they had all been corrupted by western values, because they didn't support their revolution.

In the end, this resulted in governments in those countries consolidating power and going after the islamists by all means necessary. At the end of the 90's, the various Arab regimes and leaders were in a very strong position and the islamist movements had been more or less exterminated.

A very small number of survivors from the radical islamist movement fled back to Afghanistan - it was the only place they could hide. They had no support in the Arab world - not with the politicians and not with the people. In 1998 Osama Bin Laden's group made an announcement that from now on they would focus on attacking the source of what they said corrupted the Arab societies: America. These were threats by a group that had no political backing, virtually no resources, and absolutely no support amongst the people they were claiming to represent.

It is not surprising that they were never considered to be a real threat by US and other intelligence agencies. It turned out however that even a (then) very small group such as AQ could inflict some serious damage.

So what about the Arab-Western relationships at that point? Not to bad. Of course the whole Israel-Palestine thing has been used for the last 50 years by Arab politicians, but it was little to it. The Arabs were certainly not a threat in any way to the US or the rest of the world. In most cases there were quite well working relationships in place. The Arab people didn't mind the west and western values were not seen as a corrupting or something to be eliminated. Religious fundamentalism was getting constantly weaker etc In short, not ideal conditions, but it certainly looked that it was going in the right direction.

Then came the WTC attacks and the Iraq invasion.

And what are we looking at today in terms of what the popular political view amongst Arabs is? It's not Bin Laden's radical philosophy, but it is certainly a re-birth of anti-western islamism. The curious part is that we may see some interesting hybrid political systems - western-type democracies ruled by islamic fundamentalists. The anti-western or specifically anti-American sentiment is currently very strong while at the same time there are indications of a political power shift. It would seem that people are warming up to the idea of a democratic system.

So it is basically a similar situation to the one in the early 90's, but with a twist. Personally, I think that the Bush administration can take most of the credit for reviving the islamist movement. In 2000 it was dead, now it is blooming. In addition the radical factions have gained strength. It doesn't look like they have any significant popular support this time either, but their ranks have grown significantly.

[python3 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4339511.stm

hmm.... wonder how much valuable information those 11 year olds and seventeen year old girls must have had on the insurgency. Is it just me, or is there something seriously wrong in detaining women and children who have harmed no one. The last time i thought about tthe subject i thought people who committ no crimes are innocent and therefore should be spared imprisonement. I wonder how many pro-war would love their 17 yr old daughters fondelled by 4 drunken soldiers. Sound pleasing? i would shoot the f****** if i got the chance.

On to denoirs point on democracy.... I think you are quite correct. Democracy might spring up much to the US's pleasure, except heavily anti-US govts might appear. Too long have the people and the gov'ts there had differing views. Us will be in for quite a shocker if its dream of democratic ME takes place. I know that where i come from, the secularists and coptics actually support the current gov't cuz they kno that the day we get democracy the muslim brotherhood is gonna take over. Its the islamists who push harder for democracy. Thats the non violent way to push their agenda.

Like its been said "US-good for democracy, good for Islam "

[Necromancer- 0]

Like its been said "US-good for democracy, good for Islam "

I'm still convinced the Iraqi government is a US puppet.  

I don't find democracy working if the people didn't have much education than just the "Qu'ran".

In the beginning they'll agree on the implementation of the Sharia law..

"YEAH SHARIA LAW! NO MORE SADDAM!!! THANK YOU AMERICA!"

one year later..

"I declare a fatwa! Sharia law SUCKS!"

Year after year the people will demonstrate against such laws.. resulting in lots of angry mobs rioting the Iraqi streets.

It is best to set up a totalitair regime and re-educate the Iraqi people with other stuff than just "Allah is great, live for him, love him, die for him, if not then you'll go to hell and you can forget about having sex with 70 virgins".

[python3 0]

Like its been said "US-good for democracy, good for Islam "

I'm still convinced the Iraqi government is a US puppet.  

I don't find democracy working if the people didn't have much education than just the "Qu'ran".

In the beginning they'll agree on the implementation of the Sharia law..

"YEAH SHARIA LAW! NO MORE SADDAM!!! THANK YOU AMERICA!"

one year later..

"I declare a fatwa! Sharia law SUCKS!"

Year after year the people will demonstrate against such laws.. resulting in lots of angry mobs rioting the Iraqi streets.

It is best to set up a totalitair regime and re-educate the Iraqi people with other stuff than just "Allah is great, live for him, love him, die for him, if not then you'll go to hell and you can forget about having sex with 70 virgins".

who the hell is ever gonna issue a fatwa against islamic law? Its kinda contradictory.

How do you know the level of education in Iraq. first off, most countries in the ME are not theocracy but secular dictatorships. Islam is not taught as much in schools as you would assume. Islamic education in arab schools is basic at most. They get that from their family, surroundings and religious schools. And FYI Iraq had one of the best education systems worldwide before Saddams wars. Most of those people are still alive and well.

Even if that was the case and people only knew the Quran, it would still constitute a democracy as long as the people chose the leader. If thats all people want to know, then its their country, their choice. No one ever said western culture was gonna bloom in the ME as a result of democracy. Democracy is just a system of gov't. not the lifestyle.

Might i remind you that these are muslims. Over 90% of the population are muslims. That stuff you just said about "Allah being great" etc. is at the core of our religion. Belief in one all powerful God. That is why muslims always celebrate by saying Allahu Akbar. No better sayings in our minds. No muslim in his right mind would ever forget any of that just because they learn secular knowledge (science, math).

Its easy for you to write this because maybe ur not muslim or you are a secularist, but muslims think differently than you do on the topic of their religion.

What do you think saddam was a religious dictator? nope the complete opposite. Most of these autocrats are secular rulers. They oppressed the religious groups, but people with freedom now turn to them the most. Like i said Islam is on the rise in the ME. Maybe the war on Iraq/terror is a good thing

[der bastler 0]

So it was a temporarely set-up checkpoint by a mobile patrol.

This includes that it didn´t have all the bells and whistels a permanent checkpoint has.

I also appreciate, that we now know that the US forces indeed had knowledge of the transport, according to Berlusconi.

I also think it´s very funny that the top U.S general in Iraq says that they had no indication about the "route" of the car. I remember him saying that they had no knowledge of the transport at all. Now they had no knowledge of the route

There´s only one road to the airport, so what alternative routes should they have taken ?

I wanted to post it some days ago but... lack of time...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4325253.stm

Quote[/b] ]The US military says the car carrying Mr Calipari was speeding as it approached a coalition checkpoint in western Baghdad at 2055 (1755 GMT) on Friday.

Sunset in Baghdad: approx. 1800 (1500Z) (refer to time anddate.com)

Moon: Between last quarter and new moon

Conclusion: It was dark.

Quote[/b] ]Soldiers used "hand and arm signals, flashing white lights and firing warning shots" to get the driver to stop.

When the car did not stop, soldiers shot into its engine block.

According to bbc.co.uk "...Doctors said he [Calipari] was struck in the temple by a single round and died instantly."

Taking into account he was shielding Sgrena at backseat position and basic ballistics: Perhaps they were aiming for the engine block, but apparently not precisely aimed and/or not with single shots. Plus for US: it is very difficult to hit a moving target in the dark.

Quote[/b] ]US Lt Col Clifford Kent of the 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad said the checkpoint where the shooting happened was a temporary set-up.

According to the Associated Press news agency, when asked how easy it would be to see US troops at the checkpoint at night, he said: "Depending on where it is, that could be difficult."

The "where it is" would be interesting: It was mentioned in several news papers/magazines that Calipari&Co were passing two checkpoints without problems and that the incident happened after they passed a turn or t-crossing (slowing them down). Where they ran in a temporary set-up check point "difficult to see". Other way around: the car must have appeared out of the dark for the checkpoint troops. Time for noticeable light flashing, warning shots? At a temporary set-up checkpoint? Unlikely.

One point for the US-troops: Sgrena survived and can tell her tales. If they intended to get rid of her she would now be dead (car accident with a MBT or the like ).

An accident? Likely. Negligent? Grossly negligent? Wilful?

Anyway a bad PR for the US armed forces, strengthen the stereotype of "worst intel" and "trigger-happy".

[Wilco 944]

Random shit again.

Quote[/b] ]

Cause of Death Detail Total Percentage

Hostile - hostile fire 399 26.3%

Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack 320 21.1%

Non-hostile - vehicle accident 133 8.8%

Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack 65 4.3%

Non-hostile - helicopter crash 59 3.9%

Hostile - hostile fire - car bomb 55 3.6%

Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack 53 3.5%

Hostile - hostile fire - ambush 52 3.4%

Hostile - helicopter crash 39 2.6%

Non-hostile - weapon discharge 33 2.2%

Hostile - vehicle accident 24 1.6%

Hostile - hostile fire - suicide bomber 23 1.5%

Hostile - hostile fire - sniper 22 1.5%

Hostile - helicopter crash (missile attack) 22 1.5%

Non-hostile - unspecified cause 22 1.5%

Hostile - hostile fire - rocket attack 19 1.3%

Non-hostile - weapon discharge (accid.) 14 0.9%

Hostile - hostile fire - grenade 13 0.9%

Non-hostile - drowning 13 0.9%

Non-hostile - ordnance accident 11 0.7%

Non-hostile - illness 10 0.7%

Hostile - hostile fire - suicide car bomb 10 0.7%

Non-hostile - electrocution 8 0.5%

Hostile - hostile fire - bomb 8 0.5%

Non-hostile - vehicle accident (drowning) 8 0.5%

Non-hostile - unspecified injury 7 0.5%

Hostile - friendly fire 7 0.5%

Non-hostile - illness - heart attack 6 0.4%

Hostile - hostile fire - explosion 5 0.3%

Non-hostile - accidental fall 3 0.2%

Hostile - hostile fire - suicide boat bomb 3 0.2%

Non-hostile - illness - sudden collapse 3 0.2%

Non-hostile - weapon malfunction 3 0.2%

Non-hostile - not reported 3 0.2%

Non-hostile - illness - heart attack? 2 0.1%

Non-hostile - homicide 2 0.1%

Non-hostile - accident (?) 2 0.1%

Non-hostile - illness - died in sleep 2 0.1%

Non-hostile - illness - heat related 2 0.1%

Non-hostile - illness - heat related? 2 0.1%

Non-hostile - illness - heatstroke 2 0.1%

Non-hostile - illness - pneumonia? 2 0.1%

Non-hostile 2 0.1%

Hostile - jet crash 2 0.1%

Hostile - ordnance accident 2 0.1%

Hostile - drowning 2 0.1%

Hostile - hostile fire - anti-tank mine 1 0.1%

Hostile - friendly fire - cluster bomblet 1 0.1%

Hostile - friendly fire - jet crash 1 0.1%

Hostile - hostile fire - car bomb?/RP grenade? 1 0.1%

Hostile - hostile fire - land mine 1 0.1%

Hostile - hostile fire - mine 1 0.1%

Non-hostile - accident 1 0.1%

Non-hostile - building fire 1 0.1%

Non-hostile - illness - acute leukemia 1 0.1%

Non-hostile - illness - acute pancreatitis 1 0.1%

Non-hostile - illness - breathing difficulties 1 0.1%

Non-hostile - illness - seizure 1 0.1%

Non-hostile - illness - heart failure 1 0.1%

Non-hostile - maintenance accident 1 0.1%

Non-hostile - munitions accident 1 0.1%

Non-hostile - unspecified accident 1 0.1%

Non-hostile - vehicle accident 1 0.1%

Total 1516

Hostile fire is still at the top of the list, anyone think IED attacks are slowly going down?  I hear less and less in the news about them.

By the way, these are U.S. casualties.

[chops 111]

Wilco I was thinking the same thing. Not as much news coming out of occupiers dying as before. The poor Iraqi police recruits seem to be continually getting blown to pieces. It must take some courage to line up at those recruiting offices.

[Wilco 944]

Wilco I was thinking the same thing. Not as much news coming out of occupiers dying as before. The poor Iraqi police recruits seem to be continually getting blown to pieces. It must take some courage to line up at those recruiting offices.

Statistics show Iraqi soldiers dying at twice the rate of our soldiers, but they still keep lining up to be recruited, anyone know why?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Statistics show Iraqi soldiers dying at twice the rate of our soldiers, but they still keep lining up to be recruited, anyone know why?

Because they need money to feed their families and other jobs are not available in Iraq.

[black dragon 0]

Yes that`s the right point

[walker 0]

Hi all

I think Wilco's statistic is a stark one it shows that situation is not getting better it is getting worse.

As Wilco has stated the death rate among Iraqi soldiers fighting against the resistance is twice that of the Americans in Iraq it there for follows that if we were to extrapolate wilco's own figures and estimate of death rate among Iraqis the death rate among alied troops has risen to three times what it was in the first year.

According to wilco's figures there is an aproximate total of alied casualties that would be Not less than 5,000 alied soldiers killed US estimates of US wounded running at over 11,000 so on Wilcos stats probably extrapolate out to a total 33,000 alied troops wounded.

The estimate of civilan deaths is between 16381 and 18662 the lord alone knows how many wounded cripled and driven insane.

And all for what to find No WMD and so George Bush Jnr. could say he won a war for the American elections.

Sadly walker

[theavonlady 2]

No WMDs? We may never know for sure but there very well seems to have been a potential, according to this NY Times article:

Quote[/b] ]Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says

By JAMES GLANZ and WILLIAM J. BROAD

Published: March 13, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 12 - In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments on the looting.

The Iraqi official, Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry, said it appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants in search of valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away.

Dr. Araji said his account was based largely on observations by government employees and officials who either worked at the sites or lived near them.

"They came in with the cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites," Dr. Araji said. "They knew what they were doing; they knew what they want. This was sophisticated looting."

The threat posed by these types of facilities was cited by the Bush administration as a reason for invading Iraq, but the installations were left largely unguarded by allied forces in the chaotic months after the invasion.

Dr. Araji's statements came just a week after a United Nations agency disclosed that approximately 90 important sites in Iraq had been looted or razed in that period.

Satellite imagery analyzed by two United Nations groups - the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, or Unmovic - confirms that some of the sites identified by Dr. Araji appear to be totally or partly stripped, senior officials at those agencies said. Those officials said they could not comment on all of Dr. Araji's assertions, because the groups had been barred from Iraq since the invasion.

For nearly a year, the two agencies have sent regular reports to the United Nations Security Council detailing evidence of the dismantlement of Iraqi military installations and, in a few cases, the movement of Iraqi gear to other countries. In addition, a report issued last October by the chief American arms inspector in Iraq, Charles A. Duelfer, told of evidence of looting at crucial sites.

The disclosures by the Iraqi ministry, however, added new information about the thefts, detailing the timing, the material taken and the apparent skill shown by the thieves.

Dr. Araji said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's dormant program on unconventional weapons. After the invasion, occupation forces found no unconventional arms, and C.I.A. inspectors concluded that the effort had been largely abandoned after the Persian Gulf war in 1991.

Dr. Araji said he had no evidence regarding where the equipment had gone. But his account raises the possibility that the specialized machinery from the arms establishment that the war was aimed at neutralizing had made its way to the black market or was in the hands of foreign governments.

"Targeted looting of this kind of equipment has to be seen as a proliferation threat," said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a private nonprofit organization in Washington that tracks the spread of unconventional weapons.

Dr. Araji said he believed that the looters themselves were more interested in making money than making weapons.

The United Nations, worried that the material could be used in clandestine bomb production, has been hunting for it, largely unsuccessfully, across the Middle East. In one case, investigators searching through scrap yards in Jordan last June found specialized vats for highly corrosive chemicals that had been tagged and monitored as part of the international effort to keep watch on the Iraqi arms program. The vessels could be used for harmless industrial processes or for making chemical weapons.

American military officials in Baghdad did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the findings. But American officials have said in the past that while they were aware of the importance of some of the installations, there was not enough military personnel to guard all of them during and after the invasion.

White House officials, apprised of the Iraqi account by The New York Times, said it was already well known that many weapons sites had been looted. They had no other comment.

Daily Looting Reports

Many of Iraq's weapons sites are clustered in an area from Baghdad's southern outskirts to roughly the town of Iskandariya, about 30 miles south. Dr. Araji, who like many others at the Industry Ministry kept going to work immediately after the invasion, was able to collect observations of the organized looting from witnesses who went to the ministry in Baghdad each day.

The Industry Ministry also sent teams of engineers to the looted sites in August and September of 2003 as part of an assessment undertaken for the Coalition Provisional Authority, the interim American-led administrative apparatus. By then, virtually all of the most refined equipment was gone, Dr. Araji said.

The peak of the organized looting, Dr. Araji estimates, occurred in four weeks from mid-April to mid-May of 2003 as teams with flatbed trucks and other heavy equipment moved systematically from site to site. That operation was followed by rounds of less discriminating thievery.

"The first wave came for the machines," Dr. Araji said. "The second wave, cables and cranes. The third wave came for the bricks."

Hajim M. al-Hasani, the minister of industry, referred questions about looting to Dr. Araji, who commented during a lengthy interview conducted in English in his office on Wednesday and a brief phone interview on Friday.

Dr. Araji said that if the equipment had left the country, its most likely destination was a neighboring state.

David Albright, an authority on nuclear weaponry who is president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, said that Syria and Iran were the countries most likely to be in the market for the kind of equipment that Mr. Hussein purchased, at great cost, when he was secretly trying to build a nuclear weapon in the 1980's.

Losses at Enrichment Site

As examples of the most important sites that were looted, Dr. Araji cited the Nida Factory, the Badr General Establishment, Al Ameer, Al Radwan, Al Hatteen, Al Qadisiya and Al Qaqaa. Al Radwan, for example, was a manufacturing plant for the uranium enrichment program, with enormous machine tools for making highly specialized parts, according to the Wisconsin Project. The Nida Factory was implicated in both the nuclear program and the manufacture of Scud missiles.

Al Qaqaa, with some 1,100 structures, manufactured powerful explosives that could be used for conventional missile warheads and for setting off a nuclear detonation. Last fall, Iraqi government officials warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that some 377 tons of those explosives were missing after the invasion. But Al Qaqaa also contained a wide variety of weapons manufacturing machinery, including 800 pieces of chemical equipment.

The kinds of machinery at the various sites included equipment that could be used to make missile parts, chemical weapons or centrifuges essential for enriching uranium for atom bombs. All of that "dual use" equipment also has peaceful applications - for example, a tool to make parts for a nuclear implosion device or for a powerful commercial jet turbine.

Mr. Hussein's rise to power in Iraq culminated in his military building not only deadly missiles but many unconventional arms. After the 1991 gulf war, international inspectors found that Baghdad was close to making an atom bomb and had succeeded in producing thousands of biological and chemical warheads.

Starting in 1991, the United Nations began destroying Iraq's unconventional arms and setting up a vast effort to monitor the country's industrial infrastructure to make sure that Baghdad lived up to its disarmament promises. The International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna, was put in charge of nuclear sites, and Unmovic, based in New York, was given responsibility for chemical and biological plants as well as factories that made rockets and missiles.

A Western diplomat familiar with satellite reconnaissance done by the International Atomic Energy Agency said it confirmed some of the Iraqi findings. For instance, he said, it showed that the Nida Factory had been partly destroyed, with some buildings removed, and some rebuilt. He added that the Badr General Establishment was almost entirely dismantled.

By contrast, he said, the agency's photo analysts found Al Ameer untouched, but only as seen from overhead. "The buildings could be totally empty," he said.

The diplomat added that the atomic energy agency's reconnaissance team found that Al Radwan was "significantly dismantled" and that Al Qadisiya had almost vanished. At the sprawling Hatteen base, he said, "parts are untouched, and parts are 100 percent gone."

Before the invasion, the United Nations was monitoring those kinds of sites. Two senior officials of the monitoring commission said in an interview that their agency's analysis of satellite reconnaissance photos of Iraq showed visible looting and destruction at five of the seven sites that had been cited by Dr. Araji.

The officials cautioned that the agency zeroed in on certain buildings of special interest in its monitoring work on unconventional weapons and that other structures or warehouses at a particular identified site might still be intact.

"You might have a place with 100 buildings but we'd have an interest in only 3 of them," an official said.

Officials at the United Nations monitoring agency said some areas of the sprawling Qaqaa installation involved in chemical processing had been wrecked by fire and possible extensive looting. Unknown is the fate of such equipment there like separators, heat exchangers, mixers and chemical reactors, all of which can be used in making chemical weapons.

The Badr General Establishment, they said, had been systematically razed. "It's fairly significant," one official said of the looting and disappearance of important buildings.

The Radwan site has been dismantled, they said, with the destruction quite extensive. And the Qadisiya small arms plant has been razed, they said, as have the buildings the agency monitored at the sprawling Hatteen installation. The two officials said the agency had no information on the condition of the Nida Factory or the Ameer site.

No Saudi or Iranian Replies

The recent monitoring agency report said Unmovic had asked Iraq's neighbors if they were aware of whether any equipment under agency monitoring had moved in or through their countries. Syrian officials, it said, replied that "no relevant scrap from Iraq had passed through Syria." The agency, the report added, had yet to receive a response from Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Dr. Hasani, the Iraqi industry minister, said the sites of greatest concern had been part of the Military Industrialization Commission, a department within the ministry until it became a separate entity in the 1990's. The commission, widely known as the M.I.C., was dissolved after the fall of Baghdad, and responsibility for its roughly 40 sites was divided between the ministries of industry and finance, Dr. Hasani said. "We got 11 of them," he said.

Dr. Araji, whose tenure with the ministry goes back to the 1980's, is now involved in plans to use the sites as manufacturing centers in what the ministry hopes will be a new free-market economy in Iraq. He said that disappointment at losing such valuable equipment was a prime reason that the ministry was determined to speak frankly about what had happened.

"We talk straight about these matters, because it's a sad thing that this took place in Iraq," Dr. Araji said. "We need anything that could support us here."

"When you have good factories that could support that move and that transformation," he said, "it would be good for the economy of the country."

In an interview, a senior atomic energy agency official said the agency had used the reconnaissance photos to study roughly 100 sites in Iraq but that the imagery's high cost meant that the inspectors could afford to get updates of individual sites only about once a year.

In its most recent report to the United Nations Security Council, in October, the agency said it "continues to be concerned about the widespread and apparently systematic dismantlement that has taken place at sites previously relevant to Iraq's nuclear program."

Alarms to Security Council

Agency inspectors, in visiting other countries, have discovered tons of industrial scrap, some radioactively contaminated, from Iraq, the report noted. It added, however, that the agency had been unable to track down any of the high-quality, dual-use equipment or materials.

"The disappearance of such equipment," the report emphasized, "may be of proliferation significance."

The monitoring commission has filed regular reports to the Security Council since raising alarms last May about looting in Iraq, the dismantlement of important weapons installations and the export of dangerous materials to foreign states.

Officials of the commission and the atomic energy agency have repeatedly called on the Iraqi government to report on what it knows of the fate of the thousands of pieces of monitored equipment and stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials.

Last fall, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, put public pressure on the interim Iraqi government to start the process of accounting for nuclear-related materials still ostensibly under the agency's supervision. Iraq is obliged, he wrote to the president of the Security Council on Oct. 1, to declare semiannually changes that have occurred or are foreseen.

In interviews, officials of the monitoring commission and the atomic energy agency said the two agencies had heard nothing from Baghdad - with one notable exception. On Oct. 10, the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology wrote to the atomic agency to say a stockpile of high explosives at Al Qaqaa had been lost because of "theft and looting."

During the American presidential election last fall, news of that letter ignited a political firestorm. Privately, officials of the monitoring commission and the atomic energy agency have speculated on whether the political uproar made Baghdad reluctant to disclose more details of looting.

James Glanz reported from Baghdad for this article, and William J. Broad from New York. David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington.

Just think of the potential - Scuds with even dirty nuke warheads. And in the hands of Saddam & Sons. Lovely.

[der bastler 0]

No WMDs? We may never know for sure but there very well seems to have been a potential, according to this NY Times article:

It's interesting how the potent Iraqi armed forces could withstand the coalition forces...

Thinking of the mad dictator... Why didn't he fired some (at least dirty) nuclear bombs at surrounding states if he had some at hand? He did in 1991, using SCUDs with conventional war heads.

Anyway, it was known that Saddam enforced development of WMDs, that's why UN was monitoring it. The question was, whether development is going on or suspended. US said it was going on. UN said they were watching and controlling. Who was right? Let's continue...

Quote[/b] ]The threat posed by these types of facilities was cited by the Bush administration as a reason for invading Iraq, but the installations were left largely unguarded by allied forces in the chaotic months after the invasion.

Why? You found the proofs you're hunting for and let them unguarded?

Answer is given later in the text:

Quote[/b] ]But American officials have said in the past that while they were aware of the importance of some of the installations, there was not enough military personnel to guard all of them during and after the invasion.

Understood. But it was a key argument, going to war against WMDs, so why not do a quick investigation including a nice presentation afterwards (like the one held by Mr Powell before the war). The US could have said "Look, we were right!"

Iraqi resistance was on the run, so command could have set up some task forces for WMD investigation, securing evidences and finally drawing in more supporting countries with a neat presentation topic "We were right and we need your help for securing peace!". Doing it fast and the investigating troops could have been directed back to the front. Supported by fresh troops from new coalition members...

Quote[/b] ]Dr. Araji said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's dormant program on unconventional weapons. After the invasion, occupation forces found no unconventional arms, and C.I.A. inspectors concluded that the effort had been largely abandoned after the Persian Gulf war in 1991.

So... no unconventional arms found and no effort to produce some after 1991. As stated by the UN.

Quote[/b] ]Dr. Araji said that if the equipment had left the country, its most likely destination was a neighboring state.

David Albright, an authority on nuclear weaponry who is president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, said that Syria and Iran were the countries most likely to be in the market for the kind of equipment that Mr. Hussein purchased, at great cost, when he was secretly trying to build a nuclear weapon in the 1980's.

The wrath of Saddam? Nuclear development aid for Iran as some sort of heritage?

Great, so the war with over 1000 dead American soldiers shifted the "threat" from Iraq to Iran instead of eliminating it? I hope not, would be very cynic...

Quote[/b] ]Mr. Hussein's rise to power in Iraq culminated in his military building not only deadly missiles but many unconventional arms. After the 1991 gulf war, international inspectors found that Baghdad was close to making an atom bomb and had succeeded in producing thousands of biological and chemical warheads.

Starting in 1991, the United Nations began destroying Iraq's unconventional arms and setting up a vast effort to monitor the country's industrial infrastructure to make sure that Baghdad lived up to its disarmament promises.

According to the CIA inspectors (see other quote) the WMD efforts were abandoned after 1991, and UN was monitoring the destruction of existing arms in the 90s. Nowadays, US troops could not find unconventional arms and could not secure WMD construction plants. About which potential are we talking now?

[theavonlady 2]

Thinking of the mad dictator... Why didn't he fired some (at least dirty) nuclear bombs at surrounding states if he had some at hand? He did in 1991, using SCUDs with conventional war heads.

Quote[/b] ]Great, so the war with over 1000 dead American soldiers shifted the "threat" from Iraq to Iran instead of eliminating it? I hope not, would be very cynic...

Make up your mind.

Either Bush is evil because there were no WMDs, or Rumsfeld is evil because he let looters steal the WMDs.

Personally, I blame Rummy and others. Apparently, I'm not alone.

The article does not say that Saddam had WMDs. It does, however, convey that something was important enough for "sophisticated looter" (what a term! wink! wink!) to come in with "cranes and the lorries".

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to assess what might have been going on there. Once again, see the CIA's Duelfer Report, especially the report's key findings:

Quote[/b] ]Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions

were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that

which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion,

irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic

missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions

were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that

which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion,

irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic

missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

The basis for the war wasn't what Saddam wanted to aspire to be when he grew up. The basis was what he definitly had available and was just itching to use.

Quote[/b] ]

Either Bush is evil because there were no WMDs, or Rumsfeld is evil because he let looters steal the WMDs.

How about both? Bush is evil for starting the war under false pretenses and knowing about it, and Rumsfeld is evil and an idiot for not having adequate plans and letting looters possibly steal evidence the US needed. Though I doubt it was there. No one could be that stupid....stupid enough to let the proof that would shut "old Europe" up and prove the US right just get stolen.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions

were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that

which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion,

irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic

missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

The basis for the war wasn't what Saddam wanted to aspire to be when he grew up. The basis was what he definitly had available and was just itching to use.  

Fair enough. If only we knew what those "sophisticated looters" looted.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Either Bush is evil because there were no WMDs, or Rumsfeld is evil because he let looters steal the WMDs.

How about both? Bush is evil for starting the war under false pretenses and knowing about it,

This is where I disagree. All reports, as lousy as they were at the time, indicated that Saddam had them. This was also the opinion of US intelligence agencies during Clinton's term and in Clinton's and his administration's own word.

Quote[/b] ]and Rumsfeld is evil and an idiot for not having adequate plans and letting looters possibly steal evidence the US needed. Though I doubt it was there. No one could be that stupid....stupid enough to let the proof that would shut "old Europe" up and prove the US right just get stolen.

There were a lot of stupid things that happened in Iraq. This one is but a single symptom.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]

There were a lot of stupid things that happened in Iraq. This one is but a single symptom.

Well the interesting thing is, there seemed to be plenty of troops to guard the Oil Ministry, but they claimed there weren't enough to guard the whole reason (as they gave it) for the war. That sounds a bit odd to me.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]

There were a lot of stupid things that happened in Iraq. This one is but a single symptom.

Well the interesting thing is, there seemed to be plenty of troops to guard the Oil Ministry

Define "plenty".

10?

100?

1000?

Another misplaced priority perhaps or did the oil ministry possibly contain vital records of Iraq's primary economic asset?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]

There were a lot of stupid things that happened in Iraq. This one is but a single symptom.

Well the interesting thing is, there seemed to be plenty of troops to guard the Oil Ministry

Define "plenty".

10?

100?

1000?

Another misplaced priority perhaps or did the oil ministry possibly contain vital records of Iraq's primary economic asset?

Does it matter how many? It was enough to chase of those looters, and eyewitness accounts put a couple tanks there as well. However many it was, they were obviously superfulous to the assault on Baghdad and could be spared to guard the ministry. So why were there enough for that but not for the weapon sites which hold the evidence the US needed, and should have been clearly a priority? I guess because the Oil Ministry was a higher (or perhaps "highest") priority?

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]

There were a lot of stupid things that happened in Iraq. This one is but a single symptom.

Well the interesting thing is, there seemed to be plenty of troops to guard the Oil Ministry

Define "plenty".

10?

100?

1000?

Another misplaced priority perhaps or did the oil ministry possibly contain vital records of Iraq's primary economic asset?

this has gotto be called 'Bill Clinton defese'....

what about that some of the sites mentioned above had potential to build, but was not guarded after invasion? shouldn't they be high on priority list since they were the primary reason for invasion argument? and that would have been clear to the people above Rummy.

having a potential doesn't mean there will be one happening soon. i have power to ban you, but that doesn't mean that i will do so as i please.

Quote[/b] ]This is where I disagree. All reports, as lousy as they were at the time, indicated that Saddam had them. This was also the opinion of US intelligence agencies during Clinton's term and in Clinton's and his administration's own word.

now you are relying on 'blame predecessor' routine. the major difference is that TCA decided to use UN instead of war, while TBA used latter.

[Balschoiw 0]

The goods looted from several locations in Iraq is a direct failure of US and coalition forces. They were responsible for protecting those sites as they were the ones who screamed WMD prior war and invaded the country and destabilized local security.

So one should think that one of their primary goals would have been to secure those sites immedeately.

Those looting reports surfaced a while ago and the US said they had no knowledge of that sites, wich was proven wrong by an embedded journalist team that filmed the locations as they accompanied the troops who investigated them. They broke open UN seals and checked the storage facilities. There was plenty of explosive stuff in there, but nothing WMD suspicious. The troops left and left the doors open. They left no guards and did not protect the facilities from looting. They even left the doors open wich is an invitation for anyone who wants to make a quick buck.

Those claims, that WMD have been looted is ridiculous unless someone comes up with some hard facts and proof.

Explosives in large amounts, yes, ammo, yes, armour plates, yes, but the US invited the people literally to loot those facilities.

One should think that even if you don´t have enough men to permanently protect or guard such sites you should have the time to pile the stuff up and detonate it.

At least that´s what´s done in other countries when they find explosive storages or ammo in large amounts in regions of war and hostility. To simply walk away and say that they haven´t even been there (wich they first did until the video reports from that locations surfaced) is not only stupid but indicates that they did it exactly for the reasons we hear today.

On a sidenote I´d like to know how many US troopd got killed by explosives looted from unguarded facilities. The families of those guys gotta be extremely thankful for that perfect job.

"There possible have been WMD, but they have been looted and brought abroad"

What a funny claim.

I can remember Rumsie saying that they have plenty of men for the job and don´t need more. He didn´t say that only once but made it a motto.

Bush going to Iraq for WMD is the same funny thing than letting Rumsie run it.

Two idiots at work.

Maybe the Brits should have been given a hint about those storages:

Investigation into claims UK troops in Iraq were not given bullets

Quote[/b] ]AN INVESTIGATION has been ordered into reports that British troops were sent on guard duty in Iraq without bullets because they were not fully trained in weapons.

Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, said a probe had been launched into the claims, made in a newspaper last week.

He was speaking after Nicholas Soames, the shadow defence secretary, cast doubt on his claims that all UK forces were "properly trained and properly equipped".

Mr Soames said during Commons question time that while he agreed with Mr Hoon that they were doing "a magnificent job", he was concerned that problems with kit and training continued.

"Are you aware of the article that said British troops were forced on guard duty in Iraq without bullets in their guns - quartermasters refused to give them any ammunition because the soldiers had not passed their weapons-handling tests - and soldiers have also been sent on dangerous convoy guard mission without ambush training while reserve forces have had to put their lives at risk without vital equipment because of cock-ups in logistics?

"Do you agree that this is wholly against all the conventions of training troops for operations in the British Army and what steps do you intend to take to address these problems?"

Mr Hoon said a "proper and thorough investigation" was being made and accused Mr Soames of a "political side-swipe". The defence budget had been "steadily increasing" under Labour, while it had fallen under the Tories, he said.

I guess we now reach the point where there are more investigations running on the war on Iraq worldwide than actual fulfilled military operations throughout it....

On April the 16th the Iraqi oil ministry was guarded by overall 50 tanks, sharpshooters and a lot of troops while other ministries were burnt to the ground and museums got looted with US troops standing by or looting themselves.

US toops at the only governmental building protected by US troops, the oil ministry.

Edit: From SSG Charlie C. Carlson, who served in Iraq and was at the location:

Quote[/b] ]I remember times we had to post female MP's at the Oil Ministry so they could search the female employees. The Oil Ministry was heavily guarded like a fortress with tanks out front and guard towers. I met one guy that worked for Halliburton who said he was making about $150,000 a year just to make sure some of the oil revenue was going to US oil companies. He further went on to say that he was in a board meeting in Houston, Texas where he was a facilitator of a meeting about sending Halliburton to Iraq. He said he heard Cheney's name mentioned many times in reference to those who helped Halliburton get on track with being established in Iraq. He said during the meeting that Cheney was guaranteed a cut of the profits of Halliburton since he ensured and paved the way for the no bid contract in Iraq.

Progress is being made? (Charlie C. Carlson III)

[kerosene 0]

You have to remember the WMD get out cluase though, he had the potential and the intention to aquire weapons of mass destruction, since neither of these can be measured or proven, technically Bush was right.

At the very least the failure to secure stockpiles of conventional weapons and WMD that may or may not have existed was a big failing since these weapons have and will end up in the hands of people who don't really like the west very much.

I can kind of see a rationale for allowing the initial looting, or at least not getting involved, the U.S probably didnt want to be shooting at mobs of civilians on the street from day one or having the Iraqi army do it for them, or mabye the people in charge just didn't care, who knows?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]You have to remember the WMD get out cluase though, he had the potential and the intention to aquire weapons of mass destruction, since neither of these can be measured or proven, technically Bush was right.

Actually you have to remember that Bush's speeches and warnings and the UN address all pointed to active WMD weapons and stockpiles (remember the mobile labs), and that he had the capability at that moment to attack. That was proven false, so actually Bush & Co. were wrong.

[Colossus 2]

I guessed that they wanted to do that after this.

Quote[/b] ]Italy plans Iraq troop withdrawal

ROME, Italy (CNN) -- Italy could begin a partial withdrawal

of its troops from Iraq as soon as September, a spokesman

for Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has said.

The deployment of the 3,000 troops has long been unpopular

in Italy and the announcement about the planned withdrawal

came as Berlusconi geared up his political campaign for

general elections, to be held next spring.

Pressure to pull out mounted after the March 4 killing in

Baghdad of Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari who was

escorting a recently released hostage to freedom.

Berlusconi's spokesman Paolo Buonaiuti said Tuesday the

prime minister had begun discussions with U.S. and Iraqi

officials about reducing the Italian military presence in Iraq.

Asked whether Italy would begin pulling out all its troops from

Iraq in September, Buonaiuti said: "That's premature to say.

We are in negotiations with allies and the Iraqi government to

discuss how we can best reduce the number of troops."

Buonaiuti added that the pullout would not be total.

"We're talking about a partial withdrawal," he said.

The withdrawal has to be coordinated with U.S. and Iraqi

officials, he said.

In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan

lauded the efforts of the Italians.

"They've served and sacrificed alongside other coalition

forces. Our focus remains on making sure that the Iraqi

forces are fully trained and equipped and ready to assume

more responsibility for their future," he said.

"And that's where our focus will remain so that, eventually,

our troops will be able to return home with honor."

Asked whether the announced withdrawal reflected tension

after the death of Calipari, McClellan said: "I haven't heard

any comment to that effect, from Italian officials."

Election campaign

Also Tuesday, Italy's parliament voted an extension -- until

June -- of Italy's military presence in Iraq.

The government made it clear following the death of Calipari--

and a subsequent outcry in Italy -- it was not considering a

pullout.

The withdrawal plan was originally reported by Berlusconi

himself, in an interview with "Porta A Porta," an Italian

television show due to air Tuesday night on RAI-1.

"Already in September we will begin a progressive reduction of

the number of our soldiers in Iraq," Berlusconi was quoted as

saying during a taping of a state TV talk show, which was to

be broadcast later in the evening.

Withdrawing Italian troops "will depend on the capability of

the Iraqi government to give itself structures for acceptable

security," the ANSA news agency quoted Berlusconi as

saying.

"I've spoken about it with (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair,

and it's the public opinion of our countries that expects this

decision."

Italy is one of the largest contributors to the U.S.-led

coalition. Its troops were sent in after the ousting of Saddam

Hussein to help rebuild the country.

On Tuesday, the Italian contingent suffered its 21st military

casualty in Iraq, with the death of a soldier who accidentally

shot himself in the head during target practice, officials said.

Seven Italian civilians have also been killed during the conflict.

CNN News

There is no dout that releations between US and Italy has been weakened, at least to the italian people.