[moki]

You've got to be kidding me? If there is even a shred of truth to this, the repercussions could be massive.

from: http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...2637-6257r.htm

.....

Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms

By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.
____John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.
____"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."
____Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.
____Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.
____The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam's weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX, is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said.
____The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said.
____Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita could not be reached for comment.
____The disappearance of the material was reported in a letter Oct. 10 from the Iraqi government to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
____Disclosure of the missing explosives Monday in a New York Times story was used by the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, who accused the Bush administration of failing to secure the material.
____Al-Qaqaa, a known Iraqi weapons site, was monitored closely, Mr. Shaw said.
____"That was such a pivotal location, Number 1, that the mere fact of [special explosives] disappearing was impossible," Mr. Shaw said. "And Number 2, if the stuff disappeared, it had to have gone before we got there."
____The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units during the conflict. U.S. forces defeated the defenders around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday.
____A military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, then inspected Al-Qaqaa on May 8, May 11 and May 27, 2003, and found no high explosives that had been monitored in the past by the IAEA.
____The Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of explosives from the facility after April 6.
____"The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd Infantry Division's arrival at the facility," the statement said.
____The statement also said that the material may have been removed from the site by Saddam's regime.
____According to the Pentagon, U.N. arms inspectors sealed the explosives at Al-Qaqaa in January 2003 and revisited the site in March and noted that the seals were not broken.
____It is not known whether the inspectors saw the explosives in March. The U.N. team left the country before the U.S.-led invasion began March 20, 2003.
____A second defense official said documents on the Russian support to Iraq reveal that Saddam's government paid the Kremlin for the special forces to provide security for Iraq's Russian arms and to conduct counterintelligence activities designed to prevent U.S. and Western intelligence services from learning about the arms pipeline through Syria.
____The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said.
____A small portion of Iraq's 650,000 tons to 1 million tons of conventional arms that were found after the war were looted after the U.S.-led invasion, Mr. Shaw said. Russia was Iraq's largest foreign supplier of weaponry, he said.
____However, the most important and useful arms and explosives appear to have been separated and moved out as part of carefully designed program. "The organized effort was done in advance of the conflict," Mr. Shaw said.
____The Russian forces were tasked with moving special arms out of the country.
____Mr. Shaw said foreign intelligence officials believe the Russians worked with Saddam's Mukhabarat intelligence service to separate out special weapons, including high explosives and other arms and related technology, from standard conventional arms spread out in some 200 arms depots.
____The Russian weapons were then sent out of the country to Syria, and possibly Lebanon in Russian trucks, Mr. Shaw said.
____Mr. Shaw said he believes that the withdrawal of Russian-made weapons and explosives from Iraq was part of plan by Saddam to set up a "redoubt" in Syria that could be used as a base for launching pro-Saddam insurgency operations in Iraq.
____The Russian units were dispatched beginning in January 2003 and by March had destroyed hundreds of pages of documents on Russian arms supplies to Iraq while dispersing arms to Syria, the second official said.
____Besides their own weapons, the Russians were supplying Saddam with arms made in Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria and other Eastern European nations, he said.
____"Whatever was not buried was put on lorries and sent to the Syrian border," the defense official said.
____Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.
____The director of the Iraqi government front company known as the Al Bashair Trading Co. fled to Syria, where he is in charge of monitoring arms holdings and funding Iraqi insurgent activities, the official said.
____Also, an Arabic-language report obtained by U.S. intelligence disclosed the extent of Russian armaments. The 26-page report was written by Abdul Tawab Mullah al Huwaysh, Saddam's minister of military industrialization, who was captured by U.S. forces May 2, 2003.
____The Russian "spetsnaz" or special-operations forces were under the GRU military intelligence service and organized large commercial truck convoys for the weapons removal, the official said.
____Regarding the explosives, the new Iraqi government reported that 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or high-melting-point explosive, and 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or rapid-detonation explosive, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, were missing.
____The material is used in nuclear weapons and also in making military "plastic" high explosive.
____Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

[jojo gunne]

Snaps Pro sucks!

[moki]

If this idiot is just trying to sell books, this is beyond irresponsible.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by jojo gunne:
Snaps Pro sucks!

Stop posting.

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
You've got to be kidding me? If there is even a shred of truth to this, the repercussions could be massive.

I'm sure Russia, with its ICBM's at the ready, is shivering in its collective boots. Even if this true, which I highly, highly doubt, there's nothing the US can do about it.

[moki]

Something is clearly very wrong here; but I'm not sure what or where. I can think of three options off of the top of my head:

a) The story is bogus, and Gertz is making it all up, knowing that he can bask in the attention now, and then explain it away later that his sources were wrong. To sell books? Promote his column? Why throw away a 20 year career?

b) Shaw, whom Gertz directly quotes, is manipulating Gertz to attempt to influence the electorate in some manner, and will take the fall for this misinformation. But why would Shaw say these things that conflict with what the DOD has stated?

c) The story has some truth to it, and it was intentionally leaked out now as an "October surprise" -- because Shaw speaking on this subject in a directly attributable manner is just strange. If it is true, and Shaw knows about it, that means many other people in the government know about it.

Frankly, none of these possibilities make much sense.

[Taliesin]

Is this the PR-preparation for a war against Syria after the election, whoever wins then?

Syria is definetly weak enough to be attacked by the US, without the US fearing it could lose many troops. On the other hand Syria is a partner of the US in the war on terror and has done quite a few things in favour of the US.

Hmm, let's see, Syria (or was it Iran or both) is supporting the Hezbollah, that resistance-group that killed about 200 US-soldiers in a suicide-attack against a US-military-post during the Israel vs. Lebanon-war. So, the US has still a grudge against Syria because of that and top of it regards the Hezbollah as a terrorist-organization, eventhough it was a legitimate resistance-group and is nowadays a political group with an armed militia.

Syria has about 15,000 soldiers stationed in Lebanon and is already warned by the UN to withdraw its troops from Lebanon. Syria sees Lebanon to be part of Syria historically, which is true, and therefore doesn't want to withdraw troops from there.

Syria also allows foreign terrorists to pass into Iraq over the difficult to control Syria/Iraq-border.

Now comes this newest tidbit, Syria is accused of hiding weapons and technology, probably even WMD's, transported from Saddam Hussein's Iraq into Syria.

In my eyes, all these things amount to a planned preparation and justification for the next war after the election, whoever wins.

Taliesin

[moki]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Now comes this newest tidbit, Syria is accused of hiding weapons and technology, probably even WMD's, transported from Saddam Hussein's Iraq into Syria.

It seems to me that the article (true or not) was far more critical and condemning of Russia, and their alleged complicity. Especially the last paragraph of the article is rather ominous.

Frankly, I find all of the explanations for this piece to be rather implausible. It makes no sense that the article is just fabrication. It makes no sense that Shaw would say what he did with no basis. It makes no sense that Russia would be involved as the article describes.

[greenamp]

This plot is getting thicker by the minute.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by moki:
c) The story has some truth to it, and it was intentionally leaked out now as an "October surprise" -- because Shaw speaking on this subject in a directly attributable manner is just strange.

It was the UN-NYTimes-CBS-Kerry Campaign's release and focus on the initial story (ie. "Bush let looters steal 380 tons of explosives") that was the "October Surprise". We even know that CBS was sitting on the story, waiting to release it on Oct. 31 (just a day and a half before the election) until the NY Times jumped the gun and released it 5 days earlier.

These are just the emerging facts and contradictions to that story... the claims 60 Minutes and Kerry were hoping to avoid with their Election Eve 'expose'. Unfortunately for them, the NY Times got a little too antsy, and they now all face the repurcussions of promoting a story that is absent of both facts and common sense.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by greenamp:
This plot is getting thicker by the minute.

Sure is, and it's unfortunate too. The last thing the Bush Admin. wants to do is air this stuff in public. But in this case, their hand was forced by the NY TImes-CBS-Kerry Campaign's "October Surprise".

I never thought "looters" carried away 380 tons of explosives. They have enough problems running off with TV sets. 380 tons requires a fleet of 18-wheelers, specialized lifting and transport equipment, and experts to oversee the transport and storage on the explosives.

It is a combination of those two elements - Bush's preference to not air out foreign disputes/dirty laundry in public and the need for some serious equipment to transport the explosives - that makes this story a whole hell of a lot more feasible than the left's "Looters stole 380 tons of explosives".

[Troll]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I never thought "looters" carried away 380 tons of explosives. They have enough problems running off with TV sets. 380 tons requires a fleet of 18-wheelers, specialized lifting and transport equipment, and experts to oversee the transport and storage on the explosives.

Oh what utter krap!

First off, looters managed to cart off tons of materials all over Iraq including at the nuclear sites. As I said, I've seen looters carry off an entire school in a week. Considering they had 7 weeks here, it's easily foreseeable that individuals did it. It wasn't one block of 380 tonnes. It's lots of little cannisters that can easily be carried.

Second, you evidently think looters = individuals carrying whatever they can and running! Not so, it could well have been an organised group of looters with 18 wheelers and cranes and whatever is necessary that came and stole the stuff.

To me it's just laughable to suggest that the Russian Army could mobilise faster than the US Army that was already there could, that they could get into and out of Iraq with heavy equipment without being detected, that they could do that in the tiny window they had between inspectors leaving and the invasion starting, that they would be interested in these explosives rather than the materials at Tubaitha and that they could do all of this without anyone spotting them.

But that's not the issue anyway. Even if Russia did assist Iraq in getting them out, it's still Bush's fault. But for the invasion, any of the possible scenarios would never have happened and those explosives would have been more secure. With the world hating America more than ever and with Bush's gratuitous violence dispersing weapons all over the place, you'd have to be a fool to think he's making you safer.

[Troll]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Unfortunately for them, the NY Times got a little too antsy, and they now all face the repurcussions of promoting a story that is absent of both facts and common sense.

If there's a story that lacks facts and common sense here it's this Russian Army conspiracy!! Fact is the stuff is missing and there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the Russian Army was even in Iraq never mind stealing explosives.

[eklipse]

Absolutely shocking - if true.

To think that all those missing armaments could be sitting, gathering dust, somewhere in Syria when they could be put to much better use by the Iraqi resistance in their efforts to drive out a hostile, occupying force and topple a corrupt, puppet regime.

[Troll]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Absolutely shocking - if true.

To think that all those missing armaments could be sitting, gathering dust, somewhere in Syria when they could be put to much better use by the Iraqi resistance in their efforts to drive out a hostile, occupying force and topple a corrupt, puppet regime.

Interestingly, the same explosives have already been traced to bombings in Iraq. I know, let's start a rumour that French foreign legionnaires have brought the explosives back in! Quick, call Fox.

[mitchell_pgh]

Just an observation:

Notice how the republicans (in this forum) are reacting to this. They are saying that it "may be true" and waiting for additional information because it seems rather unlikely. Not running around making accusations.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Troll:
Interestingly, the same explosives have already been traced to bombings in Iraq. I know, let's start a rumour that French foreign legionnaires have brought the explosives back in! Quick, call Fox.

lol

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Troll:
I'm sure Russia, with its ICBM's at the ready, is shivering in its collective boots. Even if this true, which I highly, highly doubt, there's nothing the US can do about it.

What, they're going to nuke us if we impose economic sanctions if this turns out to be true? And it's not like our massive pile of ICBM's aren't a pretty good deterrent to such things. Serious repercussions doesn't automatically mean military force. There is plenty we can do, if such allegations have merit. We could even take it to the UN!

[Logic]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
What, they're going to nuke us if we impose economic sanctions if this turns out to be true? And it's not like our massive pile of ICBM's aren't a pretty good deterrent to such things. Serious repercussions doesn't automatically mean military force. There is plenty we can do, if such allegations have merit. We could even take it to the UN!

And there Russia would veto everything that you throw at them. No solution in the UN when it comes to the veto powers. Why do you think the US has been able to install it's own friendly regimes over most of the world unpunished? Same with Russia.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
What, they're going to nuke us if we impose economic sanctions if this turns out to be true? And it's not like our massive pile of ICBM's aren't a pretty good deterrent to such things. Serious repercussions doesn't automatically mean military force. There is plenty we can do, if such allegations have merit. We could even take it to the UN!

True enough...then again Russia could just decide to stop selling oil to the US.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Logic:
And there Russia would veto everything that you throw at them. No solution in the UN when it comes to the veto powers. Why do you think the US has been able to install it's own friendly regimes over most of the world unpunished? Same with Russia.

I was being facetious with the UN comment.

[Logic]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
I was being facetious with the UN comment.

wait........






ah, much better. Seems like I'm not too good at multi-tasking today

[mitchell_pgh]

Not that I think it's going to happen, but could you imagine the landslide if they found out that there WERE WMDs?

I'm rather convinced there aren't... but who knows for sure.

[moki]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Absolutely shocking - if true.

To think that all those missing armaments could be sitting, gathering dust, somewhere in Syria when they could be put to much better use by the Iraqi resistance in their efforts to drive out a hostile, occupying force and topple a corrupt, puppet regime.

The hostile occupying force was driven out, my dear eklipse. What will be coming is a democratic and free Iraq, which is quite different than the 20 years under Saddam that you seemed perfectly content with. Wait! You're right! The scumbags who are beheading everyone from Japanese to Brits to Iraqis to truck drivers from any and every country are freedom fighters! Yeah, that's it, that's the ticket!

Iraq will be just like Japan, Germany, and South Korea: free, prosperous people. We have a bit better of a record on this than Europe does; have some faith.

Anyway, this tangent has nothing whatever to do with the story in question. Anyone know anything about this Gertz guy? What could his motivation possibly be if this story is false?

Similarly, if Gertz was deceived by Shaw, what could Shaw's motivation possibly be? Why wasn't he just an "anonymous source"?

And if any part of the story IS true, what would Russia's motivation be?

[Nicko]

Originally posted by moki:
The hostile occupying force was driven out, my dear eklipse. What will be coming is a democratic and free Iraq, which is quite different than the 20 years under Saddam that you seemed perfectly content with.

Iraq will be just like Japan, Germany, and South Korea: free, prosperous people. We have a bit better of a record on this than Europe does; have some faith.

Anyway, this tangent has nothing whatever to do with the story in question. Anyone know anything about this Gertz guy? What could his motivation possibly be if this story is false?

Similarly, if Gertz was deceived by Shaw, what could Shaw's motivation possibly be? Why wasn't he just an "anonymous source"?

And if any part of the story IS true, what would Russia's motivation be?

Please do yourself a favor and get your head out of the clouds. The top most corrupt countries in the world are also the top oil producers. Iraq is going to be FUBAR for atleast the next 20 years. Already 100,000 civilians have been killed. Count on many more thanks to the occupation.

Russia's motivation? Deniability.

[greenamp]

I wouldn't be quick to speculate on any repercussions aimed at Russia if this story is in fact valid. If it is true, there is no doubt in my mind that US intelligence already knew about it.

[itai195]

Originally posted by moki:
"That was such a pivotal location, Number 1, that the mere fact of [special explosives] disappearing was impossible," Mr. Shaw said. "And Number 2, if the stuff disappeared, it had to have gone before we got there."

That doesn't make any sense. If it was closely monitored before the invasion, how come they don't know exactly what happened? And why didn't this surface until now?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
....What will be coming is a democratic and free Iraq,...

lol

...and you believe that too?

rofl!

[Nicko]

Originally posted by eklipse:
lol

...and you believe that too?

rofl!

Hehe I think he really does believe that.
He must not travel much.

[Logic]

Originally posted by moki:
Iraq will be just like Japan, Germany, and South Korea: free, prosperous people. We have a bit better of a record on this than Europe does; have some faith.

Yeah, Chileans were so happy with Pinochet. Iranians were so happy with the Shah. Cubans were so happy with Batista. Then we have Suharto in Indonesia and Carlos Castillo Armas in Guatemala.

Want me to continue?

[Troll]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
What, they're going to nuke us if we impose economic sanctions if this turns out to be true? And it's not like our massive pile of ICBM's aren't a pretty good deterrent to such things. Serious repercussions doesn't automatically mean military force. There is plenty we can do, if such allegations have merit. We could even take it to the UN!

No, I never said they'd attack. I said you wouldn't be able to attack them or do anything else about it.

Point is we now have pictures and video proving at least some of these explosives were there when the US Army arrived. So, it's clear the Ruskies didn't make off with it before the invasion.

[jojo gunne]

Originally posted by greenamp:
US intelligence

there's a name for this.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by jojo gunne:
there's a name for this.

huh?

[jojo gunne]

Originally posted by greenamp:
huh?

proof

[greenamp]

Originally posted by jojo gunne:
proof

Go back under your bridge plz troll.

[Logic]

Originally posted by jojo gunne:
there's a name for this.

oxymoron?

What do I win?

[itistoday]

Originally posted by greenamp:
I wouldn't be quick to speculate on any repercussions aimed at Russia if this story is in fact valid. If it is true, there is no doubt in my mind that US intelligence already knew about it.

Very good point, they probably did. This story was probably stumbled upon by some reporters who weren't supposed to find out about it.

If it's true, which it most likely is (and shouldn't be surprising in the least), then there are few things the US can do to Russia. Talks between the two contries have probably already taken place, and both countries most likely agreed to stay mum on the situation. They probably went something like this:

USA: You baddies, you took out the weapons you sold to Iraq!
Russia: Guilty as charged.
USA: Oh Putin, why'd you do it, you know that's not good for our relations.
Russia: It'd be worse for our relations if it was found out.
USA: True...
Russia: And don't try to humiliate us or impose any sanctions, or you won't get your precious oil...
USA: Wouldn't have dreamed of it.

Saddam had friendly relations with both nations once, and both nations, the USA and Russia, have sold weapons to him in the past. Russia probably had certain agreements and hidden relations with Saddam, and when they saw his whole regime was about to fall apart they decided to cut their losses and take back all their shizzat so that no one could point any finger of blame at them.

You all talk as if the United States has never done any deplorable things. There are plenty of cases where this is true, like Dresden, a moment in history that will forever scar the USA, and there are many others including the selling of weapons to Iraq. (And don't forget Bush took money from the bin ladens!)

Edit: If you read the article, you'll note that the missing weapons were not "WMDs". The missing HMX and RDX, though used in the making of nuclear bombs, were not nuclear bombs themselves, and could also be used to make "'plastic' high explosive."

[moki]

Well, clearly neither Gertz nor Shaw are backing down:

.....

"Deputy Undersecretary for Defense John Shaw told the newspaper there was intelligence the French were also involved in the removal of the explosives from the al-Qaqaa depot before the war began last year."

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...5925-4725r.htm

[moki]

"Mr Shaw, who heads the Pentagon�s international armament and technology trade directorate, has not provided evidence for his claims and the Pentagon distanced itself from his remarks."

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a4bc50c6-28...00e2511c8.html

[itistoday]

Originally posted by moki:
Well, clearly neither Gertz nor Shaw are backing down:

.....

"Deputy Undersecretary for Defense John Shaw told the newspaper there was intelligence the French were also involved in the removal of the explosives from the al-Qaqaa depot before the war began last year."

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...5925-4725r.htm

Now the French..? That's surprising.

[jojo gunne]

Originally posted by itistoday:
Now the French..? That's surprising.

what about poland?

[typoon]

If this article is true then it would debunk everything the Democrats and the liberals saying that there were no WMD's and it would also debunk them for saying that Bush Lied. If this article is true it could turn the tide of the election in large favor for Bush.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by typoon:
If this article is true then it would debunk everything the Democrats and the liberals saying that there were no WMD's and it would also debunk them for saying that Bush Lied. If this article is true it could turn the tide of the election in large favor for Bush.

At which point it falls back to the "NO BLOOD 4 OIL DOODZ K? LOL" argument.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by typoon:
If this article is true then it would debunk everything the Democrats and the liberals saying that there were no WMD's and it would also debunk them for saying that Bush Lied. If this article is true it could turn the tide of the election in large favor for Bush.

Actually, not. The article claims that the weapons that were looted in a military post might be transferred by Russia into Syria. The article also says that these weapons were conventional ones, and not of chemical, biological or of nuclear nature. The IAEA says that these weapons and explosives, which also can be used to ignite a nuclear-weapon, were already tagged by the UN-inspectors, but now vanished.

So, even if all the article claims is true, that Russia's army was involved in the looting and that the weapons were transferred to Syria, it says nothing about any WMD's.

Taliesin

[villalobos]

Well here are some interesting new developments.... Blame the Russians...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ves/index.html

'Nine days after the fall of Baghdad, on April 18, 2003, a news crew from Minneapolis station KSTP-TV, traveling with troops from the 101st Airborne Division, entered the bunkers at al-Qaqaa, south of Baghdad. At one of the bunkers, they broke a seal to get inside, where they found barrels filled with powdered explosives, according to reporter Dean Staley.

Based on a review of the KSTP videotape, former weapons inspector David Kay told CNN late Thursday that the seal is consistent with seals used by the International Atomic Energy Agency and that the explosives in the barrel were indeed the type of high-grade explosives missing from the complex.'

What amuses me is that the pentagon is trying to use these satellite pictures again. We know how well that worked to 'prove' the existence of WMDs....

'But they believe it is more likely they were moved before the war, because it would have been difficult to move that much material in a war zone crawling with U.S. troops without detection.

The aerial photo the Pentagon released Thursday evening shows two trucks parked outside of one of the 56 bunkers in the Al Qaqaa complex on March 17, two days before the invasion.

The photo shows a large tractor-trailer loaded with white containers; a smaller truck is parked behind it.

While the photo shows there was prewar activity at the site, Pentagon officials concede that it does not prove that the explosives were being moved.'

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
Well, clearly neither Gertz nor Shaw are backing down:

.....

"Deputy Undersecretary for Defense John Shaw told the newspaper there was intelligence the French were also involved in the removal of the explosives from the al-Qaqaa depot before the war began last year."

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...5925-4725r.htm

You read it here first! Seems my rumour gained some momentum! Shaw's thumb must be all shrivelled by now with all the sucking he's doing.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Nicko:
True enough...then again Russia could just decide to stop selling oil to the US.

How much oil does the U.S. get from Russia anyway? I don't think it would matter if they stoped selling oil to the US. Instead we should stop buying oil from them and get it from our neighbors to the south.