Burning Questions (+)

Explosives aren't the only thing missing. Where are the answers to these questions:

What do the Iraqis think of the US presidential election?

Why won't Kerry release his military records?

What happened to the 380 tons of explosives?

I want answers before the elections but we will not get them.
Kerry just sign the release form and let us see what you are hiding.

---

So what happened to the 380 tons of explosives?

Some reports indicate the explosives disappeared BEFORE the occupation. If that is case why doesn't the US say so (and if they are why isn't that being reported)? Another interesting question being asked by The Truth Laid Bear is "If the explosives were looted, why haven't they been used?".

Of course this question assumes US military knows what is being used in the roadside IEDs (improvised explosive devices). Based off accounts I've read about 90 percent of the IEDs are located and detonated safely. So it makes sense the bomb squad guys know what is in use. One person claims the missing explosives are a powder form that is hard to use (make it go BOOM) without specialized equipment, which the bad guys don't have access to.

Another person in the know claims it would have taken 78 trucks to move it; and that is at 5-tons per load. Logically the math looks correct unless this stuff is ultra dense. So assuming it was removed after occupation how did that many loads get moved unnoticed? It certainly seems plausible it was moved while Saddam was still in power. So where is it?

The Drudge Report is following this story.

Be sure and read the section on "Missing Explosives" here.

When we first crossed the border to start the invasion, we saw some very strange things out in the open desert. Things that weren't supposed to be there. Fighter jets. Randomly scattered tanks and armored vehicles.

---

Found an interesting paper written in 2002 by Robert Kagan, some intellectual think tank guy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He was analyzing the different ways problems are approached in Europe and the USA.

Some claim that Europe is willing wait longer for diplomatic solutions because they have experienced great suffering in from World Wars. Therefore they have a higher tolerance to "pain". Kagan disagrees; he says it is a lack of power that requires Europe to hold out for diplomacy. He gives a great illustration:

The psychology of weakness is easy enough to understand. A man armed only with a knife may decide that a bear prowling the forest is a tolerable danger, inasmuch as the alternative - hunting the bear armed only with a knife - is actually riskier than lying low and hoping the bear never attacks. The same man armed with a rifle, however, will likely make a different calculation of what constitutes a tolerable risk. Why should he risk being mauled to death if he doesn't need to?

Sounds logical to me...especially when the bear has already shown a desire to eat you.