Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on October 27, 2004, 02:55:17 AM
-
source (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-26-nbc-iraq-weapons-search_x.htm)
Army unit not ordered to make Iraqi explosives search
NEW YORK (AP) — The first U.S. military unit to reach the Al-Qaqaa military installation after the fall of Baghdad did not have orders to search for the nearly 400 tons of explosives that are missing from the site, the unit spokesman said Tuesday.
When troops from the 101st Airborne Division's 2nd Brigade arrived at the Al-Qaqaa base a day or so after coalition troops seized Baghdad on April 9, 2003, there were already looters throughout the facility, Lt. Col. Fred Wellman, deputy public affairs officer for the unit, told The Associated Press.
The soldiers "secured the area they were in and looked in a limited amount of bunkers to ensure chemical weapons were not present in their area," Wellman wrote in an e-mail message. "Bombs were found but not chemical weapons in that immediate area.
"Orders were not given from higher to search or to secure the facility or to search for HE type munitions, as they (high-explosive weapons) were everywhere in Iraq," he wrote.
His remarks appeared to confirm the observations of an NBC reporter embedded with the army unit who said Tuesday that she saw no signs that the Americans searched for the powerful explosives during their 24 hours at the facility en route to Baghdad, 30 miles to the north.
No search, no guards posted to stop looters. Why didn't the Bush team plan the basic task of guarding ammo dumps?
-
All the oil fields in Iraq were the first priority to be secured. Georgey boy allowed the Museum of Iraq to be looted of priceless artifacts (from mesopotamia).
-
Originally posted by rpm
source (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-26-nbc-iraq-weapons-search_x.htm)
No search, no guards posted to stop looters.
Not true, they secured the oil ministry against looting...
Tronsky
-
lmfao..you dum potatos
that was gutted way before 2003
u player haters need to get a life ..
-
Do you guys ever get tired of being wrong?
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Do you guys ever get tired of being wrong?
(http://www.registeredmedia.com/gallery/albums/media/danrather/ratherreplaced.jpg)
-
as for the ammo dump, we used that area to stage for the push on saddam international airport, we never stuck around to count rounds, there were plenty of units behind us so i dont think that there was much looting of the ammo dump after we left the area. the museum was being looted while we were still south of the airport. i know, i was there..... then again maybe everyone missed that on CNN.
-
101... what the heck could you possibly know?
Hang on a bit and we'll have a Euro here to explain to you what you saw and what you did and what actually happened to you.
Your welcome.
;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
101... what the heck could you possibly know?
Hang on a bit and we'll have a Euro here to explain to you what you saw and what you did and what actually happened to you.
;)
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
this is funny... rpm is buying it again! You would think that after going out and buying an IBM 70's model typewriter to duplicate blathers phony memo he would have learned.
Think I will believe the soldiers that were there.
And... if the oil fields were not secured and were set on fire (could that ever happen?)....
How would the people every recover economicaly? Wouldn't the greenies have a coniption fit?
lazs
-
these are same misguided people that are going to vote for terror...err...I mean Kerry.
-
Toad - or maybe it will be a Yank? Fancy that.
-
Originally posted by rpm
No search, no guards posted to stop looters. Why didn't the Bush team plan the basic task of guarding ammo dumps?
The Bush team as in...the US military? The Division? The unit commander who happened to pass through that area? Maybe W should have ridden shotgun and micromanaged the entire war effort. This nonsense is getting more and more ridiculous the closer we get to the election.
-
Originally posted by Toad
101... what the heck could you possibly know?
Hang on a bit and we'll have a Euro here to explain to you what you saw and what you did and what actually happened to you.
Your welcome.
yea you are right, i guess that i saw it all wrong... ok folks let it rip.
;)
:aok :aok :aok :aok
-
101, I
you for your service. It was NOT the fault of the 101st, it was much further up the chain. You did the job you were told to do. Too bad the planners never put someone in place so your fellow soldiers did'nt have to deal with IED's today.
-
pacman can I call this^ guy and idiot yet?
-
Originally posted by rpm
source (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-26-nbc-iraq-weapons-search_x.htm)
No search, no guards posted to stop looters. Why didn't the Bush team plan the basic task of guarding ammo dumps?
Because there were ammo dumps all over Iraq?
These people keep morters and RPG's at home in the closet for home protection
Lets see, that one dump had 37 large bunkers (how many to guard each one, 10 men, 20 ?) and 80 other buildings.
Multiply this by a couple of hundred (at least) and how many men do you think it would take to guard all this stuff ?
Iraq, It turns out, was one Huge ammo dump.
No way in hell to cover everything, nevermind when your in the middle of a battle.
The fact that CBS was going to bring this up the day before the election is is the biggest chunk of BS I have ever seen.
-
Who has time for facts that don't fit the ABB agenda? :p
-
Originally posted by Toad
101... what the heck could you possibly know?
Hang on a bit and we'll have a Euro here to explain to you what you saw and what you did and what actually happened to you.
Your welcome.
;)
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by rpm
101, I you for your service. It was NOT the fault of the 101st, it was much further up the chain. You did the job you were told to do. Too bad the planners never put someone in place so your fellow soldiers did'nt have to deal with IED's today.
Here we have the typical ignorance displayed by those whose closest association with the military was playing with a GI Joe doll.
Do you have any idea how stupid your argument plays to those of us who are or were in the military?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Here we have the typical ignorance displayed by those whose closest association with the military was playing with a GI Joe doll.
Do you have any idea how stupid your argument plays to those of us who are or were in the military?
My regards,
Widewing
Widewing, I am a vet and proud of it. Unlike MOST of the current administration. The GI Joe comment should be directed towards Ripsnort and the rest of the republican Chickenhawks, not me.
My regards,
RPM
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Here we have the typical ignorance displayed by those whose closest association with the military was playing with a GI Joe doll.
Do you have any idea how stupid your argument plays to those of us who are or were in the military?
My regards,
Widewing
i am serving and have been for the past 15 years, was half the pin heads that bash the war effort ever been there to say what should have happened? probably not, huh.. oh well cant argue with ignorance. :)
-
Originally posted by rpm
Widewing, I am a vet and proud of it. Unlike MOST of the current administration. The GI Joe comment should be directed towards Ripsnort and the rest of the republican Chickenhawks, not me.
My regards,
RPM
Then you should know better. Combat units actively engaged are not going to guard enemy ammo bunkers. Their job is to engage and kill the enemy and that's where their focus is. When the advance is going at breakneck speed, command concerns are logistics, medical support and trying to plan far enough ahead of the advance. No one, and I mean NO ONE is paying the slightest attention to abandoned ammo dumps at this point. The rear echelon will catch up and secure abandoned ordnance. But, that will be days, maybe weeks later. The Mission is defeat the enemy, not inventory captured ordnance.
So, rpm, you were Air Force enlisted?
My regards,
Widewing
-
If 101 says he searched that complex and there were no stockpiles of explosives then we must believe him.
But thats not what he says. He says this.
"there were plenty of units behind us so i dont think that there was much looting of the ammo dump after we left the area."
what happens when we assume 101?
"and how many men do you think it would take to guard all this stuff ?
Iraq, It turns out, was one Huge ammo dump.
"
well whose fault was it that there were not enought troops to perfom that necessary task? Was it RPMs fault? Was it kerrys fault?
Who set the force levels? Who thought shock and awe would turn a whole nation into quivering subservient republicans?
The administration has insisted at every turn befor and after that they had enought men. Are you saying they didnt have enough men?
Between the idiot republicans that think that only republicans serve their country and idiot republicans that think that only idiots serve their country, we sure have a nice collection of idiots here.
-
This post:
Originally posted by rpm
No search, no guards posted to stop looters. Why didn't the Bush team plan the basic task of guarding ammo dumps?
+ this post:
Originally posted by rpm
I am a vet and proud of it.
in the same thread? I hope you realise something doesn't add up. You don't exactly sound like the voice of experience. Try making a thread that says simply "Dubya is dumb" next time. You'll make your point without the need to (poorly) intermix real-world issues with your personal agenda.
for your service to your country.
-
No, I was a Boatswain's Mate in the Coast Guard. TYVM. The job of guarding the installation would not have been a job for the 101st. It would have been a job for an MP unit. As I have said more than once (and apparently no one will admit checking) this was not an isolated incident. The units were not prepared to handled the rash of looting that occurred. I personally don't care how many of Saddam's tractor tires they made off with, but I am concerned about HE disappearing.
The 39th Brigade arrived at Camp Cooke in Taji to find looted ammo bunkers. Members of the 39th were killed and injured BY THE SAME MUNITIONS THAT WERE LOOTED. The CO said it was because after we pulled out we did not post any guard and insurgents were free to "One Stop Shop" from the bunkers. That was a command decision and a grievous error.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Try making a thread that says simply "Dubya is dumb" next time. You'll make your point without the need to (poorly) intermix real-world issues with your personal agenda.
for your service to your country.
I dub GW the TEFLON DON. Nothing sticks not even the facts:(
:(
-
Originally posted by rpm
The 39th Brigade arrived at Camp Cooke in Taji to find looted ammo bunkers. Members of the 39th were killed and injured BY THE SAME MUNITIONS THAT WERE LOOTED. The CO said it was because after we pulled out we did not post any guard and insurgents were free to "One Stop Shop" from the bunkers.
VOR, Widewing....no comment?
-
Originally posted by rpm
No, I was a Boatswain's Mate in the Coast Guard. TYVM. The job of guarding the installation would not have been a job for the 101st. It would have been a job for an MP unit. As I have said more than once (and apparently no one will admit checking) this was not an isolated incident. The units were not prepared to handled the rash of looting that occurred. I personally don't care how many of Saddam's tractor tires they made off with, but I am concerned about HE disappearing.
The 39th Brigade arrived at Camp Cooke in Taji to find looted ammo bunkers. Members of the 39th were killed and injured BY THE SAME MUNITIONS THAT WERE LOOTED. The CO said it was because after we pulled out we did not post any guard and insurgents were free to "One Stop Shop" from the bunkers. That was a command decision and a grievous error.
Okay, I can't expect a Coastie to understand this, but I'll explain it anyway.
The limited Iraqi road-net was bumper to bumper with combat units and essential logics. Where do you suppose the MPs were?
Far in the rear, securing towns and cities already captured.
The decision to guard ammo dumps is made no higher than the Division level. And trust me, Division was looking for chemical and biological weapons. High explosives can be gleaned from any explosive ordnance including artillery rounds, mortar rounds and the like. Were the combat units supposed to guard every piece of ordnance found on the battlefield?
During the first Gulf war, Iraqi ammo dumps were left unguarded by combat units too. Why? Because, THAT'S NOT THEIR JOB. They don't have time to stop and secure ammo dumps. Stopping puts soldiers at risk, because it allows the enemy the opportunity to reorganize. In an advance like that in Iraq, units keep going until the run out of gas, and then they get out and walk if need be. No field commander is going to reduce his combat power and effectiveness by detaching personnel to guard ordnance. God knows, they have enough delays with equipment breaking down and traffic jams in the rear preventing essential supplies from arriving in a timely manner. No one on earth expected the Iraqis to collapse like they did. No one expected to be advancing so fast that the REMFs couldn't keep up.
As it is, we do know that there were no high explosives found when the inspection teams caught up in early May. The odd are that the all of RDX and HDX had already been removed. Some 35 tons were already missing in early March, a month before the 101st got there. We also know that Hussein was moving munitions from bunkers in expectation that they would be hit by American aircraft if the war actually began. The CIA stated last year that Hussein had stockpiled weapons in remote locations in the event that a guerrilla war would be fought.
You have to apply common sense... I realize that those two words together is an oxymoron.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Silat
I dub GW the TEFLON DON. Nothing sticks not even the facts:(
:(
So...when this episode of "Command Decisions" gets aired in a few years, who's decision will the viewing audience get to make? I doubt it will be the CIC. So...who made the conscious decision or grievous oversight with regards to this particular ammo dump, and why? What other specific examples can we cite?
FWIW, I saw a couple such dumps get blasted straight to the moon (Iskandariya, Mosul), but this was well after "combat operations" were concluded, but not before alot of bad stuff made it's way into the general population. I suppose we should burn a witch for those cases too.
-
Originally posted by rpm
VOR, Widewing....no comment?
My above post addresses yours although I didn't quote you. Trying to eat pumpkin pie and argue at the same time, so I'm kinda busy.
-
Widewing, using the Gulf War as a comparison does not work in this case. We did not stay as an occupying force then. If we had, we would'nt be in this mess now.
-
Well who's to say that the explosives were even in there to begin with. Looters usually don't have tractor trailers and fork lifts!
RPM give it up the FACTS are not in your favor!
EDIT:
Have you read anything AT ALL about the actual invasion? This was a blitzkreig (SP) Manuver warefare at it's finest. Move as fast as you can and supply on the go. There was no "occupying force" at first, the idea was to kill the aposing army as fast as possible and that's exactly what they did.
-
Originally posted by rpm
VOR, Widewing....no comment?
From defendamerica.mil, dated 10/19/04 (that's days before the current stupidity came into being)
TAJI, Iraq, Oct. 18, 2004 — More than 400 57 mm rockets, 7,275 rounds of 14.5 mm anti-aircraft ammunition and one U.S. tube-launched optically tracked wire guided, or TOW, missile were just the tip of the iceberg in terms of munitions uncovered during a recent weapons cache discovery.
“We would begin digging in a new area and we just kept finding stuff,” said the 2nd Battalion, 7th Calvary Regiment senior Iraqi National Guard advisor Capt. Mark Leslie, of the 1st Team’s 39th Brigade Combat Team.
The discovery began with a tip from a reluctant informant. Rumors had circulated within the Iraqi National Guard camp of a citizen who knew where a very large cache of weapons was located, but fear for his life kept him from speaking with Multinational Forces.
“Once word got back to us, we began trying to get soldiers with the ING to bring this guy to talk to us. But the gentleman just wasn’t having any of it,” said Iraqi National Guard advisor Staff Sgt. Ronald Denton, of 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment’s Headquarters Company.
Known locally as a fair and honest person, the commander of Company D, 307th Iraqi National Guard Battalion finally convinced the man to speak with him and to ultimately work with Multinational Forces to recover the cache.
“Had it not been for the reputation of Lt. Col. Waleed within the community, I really don’t think we would have ever found the cache,” Denton said.
Using the information, Company D, 307th Iraqi National Guard Battalion, supported by troopers from 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment gathered up detection equipment and headed to the location.
“The location of the first site put us in the far northern region of 2-7 Cav.’s AO (area of operation),” explained Iraqi National Guard advisor Sgt. 1 st Class Robert Haney of Company A, 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment. “The initial cache discovery was exactly where the informant said it would be. But as we started spreading out, we kept finding more cache sites.”
Fanning out from the original location, soldiers eventually discovered 12 sites, each within 1 kilometer of the original site. The total amount of items discovered was staggering: 12 SS-30 127 mm rockets with launchers, 20 rocket mortars, multiple varying intensity mortar rounds and other various armaments.
As the soldiers began loading the discovered items for transport back to Camp Taji, the Iraqi National Guard troops noticed that something just didn’t seem right.
“You’ve really got to attribute the success of this mission to the ING,” said Leslie. “They live in the areas we’re going to, so they know when something looks off. People are more willing to come up to them, talk to them and give them information we would probably not get. As we were drawing close to moving back to Taji they came up to us and voiced their concerns, and asked that we increase our search area a bit more.”
Working off the Iraqi National Guard members’ suspicion, the troopers set to increasing their search radius, moving further and further away from the initial site. Soon enough, the search paid off.
“We found what appeared to be another significant cache location just a few (kilometers) away from the first sight,” said Leslie. “At that point, a quick look at our maps and we realized we were moving outside the 1st Calvary Division’s AO into areas maintained by the 1st Infantry Division.”
Securing the site for the evening, wheels were set in motion to secure permission to cross assigned area-of-operation boundaries.
“As soon as we got back to Camp Taji, we started contacting 2nd of the 108th (the command responsible for the area) to get permission to go into their AO,” Leslie said.
That unit, a New York National Guard infantry regiment attached to the 1st Infantry Division, not only granted permission, but also sent elements to assist in the security and excavation of the site.
“This is how joint operations are supposed to work,” said Haney. “You request permission, it gets approved and they send soldiers down to help with the mission. That’s Army teamwork!”
The second day of search operations revealed a much more significant find in terms of items seized as well the five individuals who were detained for later questioning.
“We found so many mortar rounds, it was just unreal,” said Denton, adding that an extensive amount of material to make improvised explosive devices was also discovered.
Included in the discovery that day was more than 150 pounds of PE-4 explosive, the explosive favored by anti-Iraqi forces to make vehicle-borne bombs that have targeted Multinational Forces and civilians alike.
Three heavy dump trucks were needed to haul the entire cache contents back to Camp Taji, where it will be disposed of.
“Everything came together like it’s supposed to on this operation,” said Leslie. “Everybody worked together in a joint (operation) that should make residents of Camp Taji and Camp Anaconda sleep a little easier— knowing we have denied the enemy these tools of destruction.”
See it here. (http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/oct2004/a101804e.html)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by rpm
We did not stay as an occupying force then. If we had, we would'nt be in this mess now.
I have to agree on the point of not finishing what we started back in GW1. It seems like it would have prevented alot of grief, at least on the surface. I'd like to know what the *real* reason for pulling our punches was.
As for the pie, yes it's piping hot fresh from the oven with a side of vanilla ice cream. BUT...let's get back to the topic. Who (if anyone) can reasonably be blamed for the looting of these weapons? If it's a simple case of knowing they were there and doing nothing to destroy or secure them, then I'm guilty along with thousands of others of identical A) Crimes or B) Tactical Error. The fact is that Iraq was absolutely covered in the stuff left behind by a retreating/ destroyed army, and it would have been impossible to secure it all while on the move. Whether or not this situation was projected or played a part in the decision making process of the war planning staff is a question CBS or embedded NBC reporters have yet to address.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Widewing, using the Gulf War as a comparison does not work in this case. We did not stay as an occupying force then. If we had, we would'nt be in this mess now.
rpm, you are being obtuse. Why don't you just admit that you have no idea what you are talking about? It's obvious to the rest of us who understand these things.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Pongo
If 101 says he searched that complex and there were no stockpiles of explosives then we must believe him.
But thats not what he says. He says this.
"there were plenty of units behind us so i dont think that there was much looting of the ammo dump after we left the area."
what happens when we assume 101?
"and how many men do you think it would take to guard all this stuff ?
Iraq, It turns out, was one Huge ammo dump.
"
well whose fault was it that there were not enought troops to perfom that necessary task? Was it RPMs fault? Was it kerrys fault?
Who set the force levels? Who thought shock and awe would turn a whole nation into quivering subservient republicans?
The administration has insisted at every turn befor and after that they had enought men. Are you saying they didnt have enough men?
Between the idiot republicans that think that only republicans serve their country and idiot republicans that think that only idiots serve their country, we sure have a nice collection of idiots here.
Nice Democratic rhetoric. But that's about all I believe it is.
I don't remember hearing anyone in the military saying they didn't have enough men during the advance. And judging from the rapidity of their advance It doesn't look to me as if they needed them.
Its wasn't until long after we reached Baghdad I remember anyone saying they needed more troops. And even then it wasn't a HUGE outcry. Most of the commanders I saw interviewed when asked the question of the number of troops claimed they thought they had enough
You want to blame anyone for our Small Military force you can start with the previous administration for its downsizing. That's when the troop reduction actually started. Or doesn't anyone remember the arguments about base closing.
On top of that I saw an interview this MA with a reporter that was there who said. Remember this place is HUGE, Roughly the size of central park.
We saw some bunkers that were still locked with locks on the door and many more that had been hit by US airstrikes and we could see the munitions inside.
Also remember there was quite a bit of time between the time the Iraqi forces pulled out of the area and the time when US troops arrived. Nobody knows what or how much they were able to take with them when they left.
If in the event it was incompetence and our fault the place wasn't guarded it Still wasn't Bush's Fault but the fault of the Military commanders as that type of thing would be too far down the chain of command for it to be Bush's responsibility.
And these would be the very same incompetent commanders Kerry would be inheriting in his military.
And even then you cant plan for every single contingency
But I highly doubt its that.
Simple reason.
360 TONS doesn't just walk off in peoples backpacks. And doesn't just disappear in a few hours
It would take many people and a considerable amount of transportation and time to move that kind of material.
something like that isn't going to go unnoticed. 2 Tons I'd say yea ok
10 or even 20 tons is possible, But 360??
Heh, I don't think so.
I'd say odds are just because of the sheer numbers. The stuff was moved well before our forces got there.
Oh and in case any of you don't know this is hardly new news.
This actually was reported some 18 months ago.
-
That unit, a New York National Guard infantry regiment attached to the 1st Infantry Division, not only granted permission, but also sent elements to assist in the security and excavation of the site.
“This is how joint operations are supposed to work,” said Haney. “You request permission, it gets approved and they send soldiers down to help with the mission. That’s Army teamwork!”
EXACTLY! That's how it is suppossed to work. That is NOT how it worked earlier when plans were not in place to handle the capture. That's why weapons caches were looted. It is just common sense to place a guard on them to prevent any Tom, Dick, or Haji from wandering in there. There was no civilian authority like the local cops to stop thieves. There was only us and we did not do the job. Our own troops have said that. Someone has to be held accountable.
Those that say 300 tons is a monsterous task to haul away are fooling themselves. You can put over a ton in a small toyota 1/2 ton pickup if you want to bad enough. I have seen it done. You can bet there are more than 300 of them in Iraq. We were not in place as a peacekeeping force when this occured. We were attacking military positions. There was inadequate planning.
-
RPM, the question of who the real boogeyman is hasn't been answered. Don't keep it a secret..we're waiting on pins and needles for a real Matlock ending to this mystery.
-
The Russians did it
http://www.drudgereport.com
-
Flit, I actually clicked on the link before I knew what it was. I suddenly feel dirty...like I need to run antivirus on the comp and take a shower.
-
Loading over 300 tons of HE into the back of Toyota 1/2 trucks....yeah....that'd be a monstrous task, and one that wouldnt go unnoticed :rofl
Even if you gave each truck twice as much cargo as it was designed to carry, thats still 360 trucks. Not to mention the dozens of people required to do the loading. 360 tons is alot of weight to move and would require a significant amount of time to load that many trucks.
You might want to edit your post rpm....give it a bit more thought next time ;)
-
C'mon Elfie, use your brain. If every cop in Colorado disappeared, how long would it take to clean out WalMart with a mob.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Flit, I actually clicked on the link before I knew what it was. I suddenly feel dirty...like I need to run antivirus on the comp and take a shower.
:rofl
info is info
-
Which Walmart? :D
Seriously, that isnt even a good comparison. With the amount of traffic in just the Denver metro area alone no one would notice the extra traffic. You arent going to move 360 Toyota pick-ups in a war zone with out being noticed.
You ever see footage on the news of people looting? You rarely see any organization amongst the looters, its more or less everyone grab what you can and run home with it. When you do see looters organized its in small groups.
Something you are forgetting, the 101st did a cursory inspection of the site and didnt find any explosives.
You remind me of a tv commercial that goes....blah blah blah blah Free Shreck 2 DVD blah blah blah blah.....you only hear what you want to hear, or in this case read.
-
Almost forgot this....
If you are so concerned about the missing explosives why didnt you pitch a fit like this when the news first came out months and months ago? Fact is you arent, you are only concerned with making Bush look bad in any way that you can.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Those that say 300 tons is a monsterous task to haul away are fooling themselves. You can put over a ton in a small toyota 1/2 ton pickup if you want to bad enough. I have seen it done. You can bet there are more than 300 of them in Iraq. We were not in place as a peacekeeping force when this occured. We were attacking military positions. There was inadequate planning.
Sayeth RPM....the greatest armchair military planner of our time.
LOOK UP MANUVER WARFARE!
The invasion was Manuver warfare in almost it's perfection. THERE IS NO REAR....THERE IS NO SUPPLY LINES!
-
I have to agree on the point of not finishing what we started back in GW1. It seems like it would have prevented alot of grief, at least on the surface. I'd like to know what the *real* reason for pulling our punches was.
For whatever reason, the coalition wasnt allowed to stay in Iraq. My belief is because it was UN sanctioned to free Kuwait and once that was done the UN operation was effectively over.
I agree though, shoulda finished Sadaam in '91.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Even if you gave each truck twice as much cargo as it was designed to carry, thats still 360 trucks.
No it isn't. It's 360 trips made by x amount of trucks over a given time.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
The invasion was Manuver warfare in almost it's perfection. THERE IS NO REAR....THERE IS NO SUPPLY LINES!
You might want to explain that to this "aimchair general"
"...according to Maj. Gen. James Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine Division..."
...
"I was not concerned about my supply lines," Mattis said. "The combat service support troops had been warned you are going to have to fight your way through to get supplies to us. Every Marine is trained as a rifleman, unlike some services. And this was not a concern to us."
http://www.d-n-i.net/grossman/itp_mattis.htm
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Loading over 300 tons of HE into the back of Toyota 1/2 trucks....yeah....that'd be a monstrous task, and one that wouldnt go unnoticed :rofl
Even if you gave each truck twice as much cargo as it was designed to carry, thats still 360 trucks. Not to mention the dozens of people required to do the loading. 360 tons is alot of weight to move and would require a significant amount of time to load that many trucks.
You might want to edit your post rpm....give it a bit more thought next time ;)
all you have proven with your post is how long the site was insecure. Probably weeks or months.
-
Originally posted by rpm
C'mon Elfie, use your brain. If every cop in Colorado disappeared, how long would it take to clean out WalMart with a mob.
Perhaps you should try using yours.
Just because troops werent there en masse doesnt mean there werent elements around. And even if they werent certainly these rear areas would be monitored You can bet your bippie that there were all sorts of helicopters flying around and forward over the area for support for the 101.
That many vehicles. and certainly even the amount of large vehicles that would be needed would certainly have been noticed by someone
300 tons of anything moving around is sure to attract some attention.
What your suggesting happened is so unlikley to have happpened it is beyond the realm of plausability
the only reason your bringing up this months old story is because Kerry keeps talking about it.
In fact your statements sound almost like a tape recording word for word what he's saying.
He's making a fool out of himself.
You are following suit.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
That many vehicles. and certainly even the amount of large vehicles that would be needed would certainly have been noticed by someone
Four trucks making three trips a day could have done it in a month. How long was the site unsecured for?
-
I actually became aware of this situation last Saturday after watching "Off to War" and made a post then. The CO of the 39th Brigade said "Somebody screwed up". Back in April our troops were being killed by looted ammo. Watch the show and tell me I'm wrong. Better yet tell the wives and families of the dead soldiers.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Four trucks making three trips a day could have done it in a month. How long was the site unsecured for?
nobody knows but I keep hearing on the news how that material was moved BEFORE the war started.
so it really doesnt matter
Somehow I still dont think they would be able to do it with perfect impunity.
-
I agree and I disagree..
Impossible to secure all the ammo dumps in Iraq. Front line units should not be the ones guarding them. MP's guard not combat units. If a unit runs across an ammo dump that big it should be secured. A MP company could have done that. The war was at such a fast pace that second line units were falling behind. I do believe to not secure this ammo dump was a mistake.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
all you have proven with your post is how long the site was insecure. Probably weeks or months.
How long did the UN leave Saddam's WMD unsecured? Wasn't the time to rectify that long overdue? Apparently it was too late.
BTW, there was a guy from the 101st interviewed on Hannity and Colmes tonight. He was among the first there and said that while they didn't search all of the bunkers they did search some and found rpgs, ammunition, etc... but defintely not 380 tons of HE.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I actually became aware of this situation last Saturday after watching "Off to War" and made a post then. The CO of the 39th Brigade said "Somebody screwed up". Back in April our troops were being killed by looted ammo. Watch the show and tell me I'm wrong. Better yet tell the wives and families of the dead soldiers.
Yea. And you somehow think that is proof?
You honestly think that even with 10 times the amount of troops we would have been able to keep ALL the weapons out of their hands?
Not to mention the weapons they already had anyway.
Hell Saddam knowing the end was near probably let people take what they wanted figuring Iraqi national pride would take over.
Hell thats what I woulda done
Your really grasping at straws here
-
Originally posted by rpm
Watch the show and tell me I'm wrong.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Four trucks making three trips a day could have done it in a month. How long was the site unsecured for?
On second thought.
This story first broke 18 months ago so without sitting here and doing the math it had to bepretty near the time of the invasion.
Now keep in mind we would have been conducting roadside checks and such.
I hardly think that people were traveling freely around the country unchecked. and the longer it took them to move the stuff the less likely it would be they would be caught.
So IMO IF it was moved after the 101 passed through it hadto be done fairly quickly. Which would mean more trucks, more trucks attract more attention till we get to the point where plausability is once again a factor
-
Originally posted by rpm
Im not saying you were wrong.
im saying your grasping at straws if you think that somehow People using looted weapons is proof that they were able to get out 300+ tons
Looting some weapons and looting 300 Tons of anything it still two entirely different animals
the Guns, rockets,mortars Im sure were readily available and easy to pick up during the conflict.
Its not like they were stopping and picking up every last gun and bullet they came accross
-
Originally posted by Flit
The Russians did it
http://www.drudgereport.com
another possibility
-
Isn’t it amazing, “Off to War” shows up on TV “2” days before the missing explosives story comes out.
-
Originally posted by Flit
another possibility
Yanno I've thought about that.
Now Im NOT making any claims that that is the case
What if it turns out in the end this whole no WMDs and other issues such as this explosives incident turns out to ultimately be a setup by our "friends" in the UN to ultimately place Bush. and the USA as a whole in an embarrassing situation?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Im not saying you were wrong.
im saying your grasping at straws if you think that somehow People using looted weapons is proof that they were able to get out 300+ tons
Looting some weapons and looting 300 Tons of anything it still two entirely different animals
the Guns, rockets,mortars Im sure were readily available and easy to pick up during the conflict.
Its not like they were stopping and picking up every last gun and bullet they came accross
They did'nt have to pick up individual weapons. They went to Home Depot and got them wholesale.
The incident I keep refering to may not be the same location, but it is proof that it was happening. The 39th was a replacement unit at Camp Cooke. When the Camp was vacated and before the 39th arrived, weapons that we knew were there a few days before were gone. There were loose crates of ammo everywhere. The base had been looted.
If that is not the same incident, it alone is enough to point out the basic failures in planning made by this administration. Someone has to be held accountable for this stupendous error.
-
Originally posted by Gyro/T69
Isn’t it amazing, “Off to War” shows up on TV “2” days before the missing explosives story comes out.
whats even more amazing is CBS had planned to run the story about the explosives on 60 minutes two days before the election
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Yanno I've thought about that.
Now Im NOT making any claims that that is the case
What if it turns out in the end this whole no WMDs and other issues such as this explosives incident turns out to ultimately be a setup by our "friends" in the UN to ultimately place Bush. and the USA as a whole in an embarrassing situation?
Naaa, they did it 'cause they were gettin paid
-
Originally posted by rpm
They did'nt have to pick up individual weapons. They went to Home Depot and got them wholesale.
The incident I keep refering to may not be the same location, but it is proof that it was happening. The 39th was a replacement unit at Camp Cooke. When the Camp was vacated and before the 39th arrived, weapons that we knew were there a few days before were gone. There were loose crates of ammo everywhere. The base had been looted.
If that is not the same incident, it alone is enough to point out the basic failures in planning made by this administration. Someone has to be held accountable for this stupendous error.
Again. some weapons to NOT equate to 300 TONS of anything.
A bit easier to sneak out some RPGs, Machine Guns, and mortars then it is 300 tons of high explosives..
And mistakes happen because people are human.
so say it is the fault of the administration is absurd.
Those responcaqbilities would fall much much much farther downt he chain of command then the president.
this would be the fault of the military commanders in the area Not the president. the same military commander Kerry would be getting under him if he is elected.
thats like trying to blame Clinton for the Blackhawk going down in Somalia
-
uhmm...you don suppose the russians might have had anything to do with this?
Didn't think so.
-
Originally posted by Gyro/T69
Isn’t it amazing, “Off to War” shows up on TV “2” days before the missing explosives story comes out.
Watch the show before you criticize it. It's on Discovery/Times Channel. It follows the 39th Brigade of the Arkansas National Guard and their families back home. It's shot "COPS" style with no commentary and let's you draw your own conclusions from the soldiers own words.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
How long did the UN leave Saddam's WMD unsecured? Wasn't the time to rectify that long overdue? Apparently it was too late.
In the sense that Iraq had already destroyed it's WMD and discontinued it's WMD programs by the time UNMOVIC showed up?
DREDIOCK, they had about a month.
"I hardly think that people were traveling freely around the country unchecked. and the longer it took them to move the stuff the less likely it would be they would be caught."
Perhaps, but it is possible.
Yeager,
"uhmm...you don suppose the russians might have had anything to do with this?
Didn't think so."
I suppose they might, can you prove they did? And why would Iraq need thier help to move 360 tons of stuff. Heck why not just ask the Syrians, the trucks are going to be going over their border anyway.
Sorry this whole Russia deal seems like spin control.
"The HE wasn't used on Americans, the evil Syrians have it and the evil Russians helpped them get it."
I could have bought the Syrian angle, but what do they need the HE for? They have plenty of thier own and could buy more. Nah this is Rovified.
-
"Watch the show before you criticize it. It's on Discovery/Times Channel. It follows the 39th Brigade of the Arkansas National Guard and their families back home. It's shot "COPS" style with no commentary and let's you draw your own conclusions from the soldiers own words."
Where did I criticize it? Talking about the timing of two events, which on the surface have nothing in common until you look a bit closer makes me go Hmmmm.
-
Sorry if I read that wrong Gyro.:)
-
Originally posted by rpm
Watch the show before you criticize it. It's on Discovery/Times Channel. It follows the 39th Brigade of the Arkansas National Guard and their families back home. It's shot "COPS" style with no commentary and let's you draw your own conclusions from the soldiers own words.
Havent seen it yet But plan to.
But, just because there is no commontary doesnt mean its not edited in such a way so as to present to you facts so that you will draw the conclusions they want you to. And most of the time shows edit things in such a way they want you to draw a particular conclusion whether they say so or not
Speaking of the show "Cops" And maybe some of the officers ont he boards here can confirm or deny it but My next door naighbors are cops as is a good friend of ours.
Each says the show is mostly BS and that things rarely happen they way they show them.
Now maybe this show is the total truth, IT very well could be. I dont know Like I said I havent seen it yet so I cant really judge other then to say I wouldnt put anything past anyone in the media LOL
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I could have bought the Syrian angle, but what do they need the HE for? They have plenty of thier own and could buy more.
Isnt "FREE" your favorite brand?
I know its mine LOL
-
Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm)
NOW
lets see skerry and boy robin eddie spin this latest development and blame the bush admin
LOL LOL LOL
-
Originally posted by Eagler
NOW
lets see skerry and boy robin eddie spin this latest development and blame the bush admin
LOL LOL LOL
Ah dude, it's already spin. Spinning the missing explosive story.
-
http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1
-
Fact is, no one yet knows when those explosives disappeared. Fact, moving 360 tons of HE wont go unnoticed in a war zone.
When the 101st airborne moved through and did a cursory inspection, dont ya think they would have noticed 360 TONS of explosives if they were there? That much of anything would be hard to miss.
No it isn't. It's 360 trips made by x amount of trucks over a given time.
Good point. However, the longer it takes to move the stuff the more likely they are to get caught.
all you have proven with your post is how long the site was insecure. Probably weeks or months.
Wasnt trying to prove anything. Was merely trying to show how rediculous the idea of moving 360 tons of HE in a war zone with Toyoya pick-ups is.
Ah dude, it's already spin. Spinning the missing explosive story
Thrawn did you read the link? I'm not saying the allegations in that news article are true, but it does bring up some interesting things.
More than once before this the Russians (among others) have been suspected of selling arms to the Iraqis. We're talking about arms that were prohibited by the UN to be sold to Iraq. So this news shouldnt be entirely discredited yet. Let this play out and we'll see what happened :)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm)
NOW
lets see skerry and boy robin eddie spin this latest development and blame the bush admin
LOL LOL LOL
from that link : -
...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.
LOL wonder which 2 european countries that could be... hmmm...
-
Interesting link Nash, we should know soon if those are the missing explosives, that is, if they can be identified from the film. Personally I am not sure if they can or cant be from the film.
-
Nash you gotta understand the bushmen have to come up with something, anything to deflect away any responsibility they may have.. What do you want them to say the truth?... Well yeah we were more interested in protecting the oil ministries then the 950 ammo dumps spread across the country. That’s a bit like saying you had to leave your 18 month old home alone because going to work was a higher priority.
some key gafts from you link
During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS news crew bunker after bunker of material labelled "explosives." Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get into the bunkers and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords.
and this...
Once the doors to the bunkers were opened, they weren't secured. They were left open when the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew and the military went back to their base.
"We weren't quite sure what were looking at, but we saw so much of it and it didn't appear that this was being secured in any way," said photojournalist Joe Caffrey. "It was several miles away from where military people were staying in their tents".
We need to impeach Bill Clinton coz he lied about having sex!!!!
-
The tally on the shifting number of Bush excuses, as they discard one debunked excuse for another, is up to four. The latest is just great. "It's the troop's fault." There is no buck stoppage whatsoever with this guy.
-
First of all, detonation cord isnt HMX or RDX explosive.
Second, they were looking for chemical and biological weapons not explosives and small arms.
Third, we dont know yet if the explosives in those pictures are HMX/RDX explosives (the ones that are currently missing)
Fourth, those bunkers should have been re-sealed. Otoh if all it took to *break in* was a pair of bolt cutters I am not sure how much good locking the doors again would have done.
Lastly, lets wait and see what the investigation comes up with. Who knows? Maybe we will ALL be surprised by the results.
-
I will only be surprised to discover this isn't another case of a campaign ploy campfire kept alive by the fuel Kerry and Co. keep pouring on it. Well, duh.
Oh, the advantage of hindsight and panoramic vision brought to you by the internet (and all from the comfort of your home or the swivel chair and cubicle your employer bought for you)! Some of you people really go beyond nonsense. Get a grip and stop pole vaulting over a mouse ****.
-
Elfie: Proud member of the non-reality based community.
Elfie our 1100 troops were killed by:
A: The Good Ship lollypop
B: Mary Popins
C: munitions looted from the unsecured ammo dumps
-
Elfie, give it up. Your excuses are lame at best.
Fourth, those bunkers should have been re-sealed. Otoh if all it took to *break in* was a pair of bolt cutters I am not sure how much good locking the doors again would have done.
Bush: What about them 'splosives over there in Eye-rack?
Rumsfeld: It's impossible to guard them Mr.President. We would have to post troops there. We need to keep our eyes on the prize. There's a 40 foot statue of Saddam that would make a perfect photo op.
Bush: Pictchers? I like pitchers! Git me some of those Eye-rackies and a box of flip-flops!
Rumsfeld: Sandals, Mr. President, SANDALS!
-
Poor Vor... sigh....
So it’s
A: “they’re just tryin’ to bash bush”
B: “it’s 50/50 hindsight... who knew we’d have to secure the ammo dumps
-
I've never planned a war, 10bears. I can't say I know what's involved. It's always easy to reverse-plan it after the fact, I suppose.
-
By the way, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why Bush is to blame IF anyone can reasonably be blamed for this incident at all. I'm thinking somewhere along GEN Franks' war staff food chain...you know, the guys that plan wars and stuff.
-
Thats a good one. Blame the soldier. The Neo Cons came up with the force levels.
-
LOL ok Pongo, ok. I've wasted enough time with this thread. Some cases are well and truely hopeless.
Ya might take the time to read the whole thread, though.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Elfie: Proud member of the non-reality based community.
Elfie our 1100 troops were killed by:
A: The Good Ship lollypop
B: Mary Popins
C: munitions looted from the unsecured ammo dumps
You dont know if the munitions killing our troops in roadside bombs were looted from ammo dumps anymore than I do. You are assuming.....
rpm...I'm lame? :rofl That article specifically states that bolt cutters is all that was necessary to get into the bunkers. If those soldiers had resealed the ammo bunkers are you trying to say that Iraqis dont have access to bolt cutters and therefore couldnt break into the bunkers after we resealed them? I'm not sure why the bunkers werent locked again. Not sure how much good that would have done though if all it took was a pair of bolt cutters to gain access to them in the first place.
I'll tell ya what is truly lame rpm....whats truly lame is your attempts to blame Bush for every single incident that comes along before the whole story even comes out. We dont even have enough facts yet to determine exactly when those explosives disappeared, let alone enough facts to determine who, if anyone is at fault. I will reserve my judgement on who is at fault until we have enough facts to do so.
You otoh jump all over the slightest indication that *someone* must be at fault.
With the sheer numbers of weapons and ammo dumps all over Iraq it most likely will be impossible to tell if the explosives used in road side bombs came from THIS ammo dump. When you also consider weapons/ammo caches that are being found buried in the sand it becomes even more unlikely.
-
game, set, match. (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847)
-
Not yet Nash :)
From a link on the page you linked to.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304
Another Concern
The IAEA documents from January 2003 found no discrepancy in the amount of the more dangerous HMX explosives thought to be stored at Al-Qaqaa, but they do raise another disturbing possibility.
The documents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility. Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted.
Again, wait until we have ALL the facts before jumping to conclusions :)
-
Havnt seen this specifically mentioned here but the IEAI January 14, 2003 confidential memo sited by ABC said there was only 3 tons of RDX stored at the facility. Not 141 tons of RDX that was reported by IEAI in July of 2002. So game set match my ass.
The 194 tons of HMX that was also sited in the Jan 14 memo was based on the intact IEAI seals on the bunkers. Reportedly ventilation slats on the bunkers could have been used to access the HMX without breaking the IEAI seals. So that tonage was also last visualy confirmed in July 2003.
-
dam you elf :lol
-
On to excuse number five! Better luck with this one.
I'll dub this one 'The Pink Panther'.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Fact is, no one yet knows when those explosives disappeared. Fact, moving 360 tons of HE wont go unnoticed in a war zone.
Heard today on the news there are two roads leading to that dump and both were being heavily used by our forces.
that would make it pretty difficult to move 360 tons unnoticed
Another point that was made was the amount of organization it would take to accomplish such a feat.
And the insurgents Didn't start becoming organized until mid summer.
And on yet another point there seems to be a new rumor about that the reports that 360 tons was a gross exaggeration and the amount really missing was more like 3 Tons
Which to me would seem far more likely then 360 tons
Add to that another report I just saw that showed the last time the place was even REALLY inspected prior to the claims of the missing explosives was in Jan 2003 and the amount of explosives according to its own report was not 360 Tons but 219 And while these bunkers were sealed there was a disclaimer at the bottom of the document that stated that the seals were not exactly foolproof
As quoted from the actual report of the IAEA
"Of note was that the sealing on the bunkers was only partially effective because each bunkar had ventilation shafts on the sides of the buildings. these shafts were not sealed and could provide removal routes for the HMX while leaving the door locked"
IAEA inspection report (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/alqaqaa_documents.pdf)
There was another brief visit to the site in March 2003 but the explosives were not inspected because the seals were still on the doors
If we are to assume they were still inside the bunkers when the inspectors were last there but only looked at the seals in March and follow the timeline the only time the explosives could have been taken was the time between when the inspectors left in march and the time the first US forces arrived.
the first US forces in the area was elements of the 3rd infantry division who first entered the compound on April 3rd
the 101st occupied the area through the 11th
now the next force to visit the site was the 75th Exploitation Task force which was there on May 7th, 11th, and 27th which is the day they confirmed the explosives were missing.
Now one could say "AHA! we have a period of a month between April 11th and May 11th when it wasn't guarded"
BUT there are only two roads leading to the facility and both were being heavily used by our forces "at all times"
So if we assume nobody touched the stuff between the Jan ispections (which was the last time the stuff was actually seen) and the march observations that the seals were still in place
the only two times it could have been taken was
Between March and April 3rd when the 3rd Inf div arrived Which was the only time they could have moved the stuff more or less at will
Orrrr
Between April 11th and May 11th with our troops around and the only two roads leading two the area being chuck full of our supply trucks pretty much 24/7
Now. Which is the more likely scenario?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Now. Which is the more likely scenario?
The likely scenario is that we're talking about it. It has been absolutely dominating the news cycle for three days now.
Because it is the perfect metaphor for the Bush failures. Strikes a cord, so to speak.
The next two days? FBI/Haliburton.
(although the doctored Bush tear jerker pic comes in a close runner-up.)
Good times. :aok
-
I did post that story about 2-1/2 hours ago by the way. (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133940)
-
Originally posted by Nash
game, set, match. (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847)
Hardly
"It remains unclear how much HMX was at the facility,"
according to ABC
what if there was more then 300 tons there and that tape just shows what wasnt taken?
after all we've already destroyed not just hundreds of tons but hundreds of thousands of tons of munitions country wide
that report shows nothing more then some explosives.maybe some was left behind
You too are grasping at straws
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
what if there was more then 300 tons there and that tape just shows what wasnt taken?
Excuse #6 (er that aint official as of this post but who knows.)
"Okay, explosives were looted, but nobody can say how much."
-
Originally posted by Murdr
I did post that story about 2-1/2 hours ago by the way. (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133940)
LOL so you did.
Wish I had seen it sooner.
coulda saved me a bunch of typing.
actually you probably posted it as I was typing as I as writing that in between doing other stuff IRL
brining son to work, getting daughter from her practice for her school play etc
-
Originally posted by Elfie
rpm...I'm lame? :rofl That article specifically states that bolt cutters is all that was necessary to get into the bunkers. If those soldiers had resealed the ammo bunkers are you trying to say that Iraqis dont have access to bolt cutters and therefore couldnt break into the bunkers after we resealed them? I'm not sure why the bunkers werent locked again. Not sure how much good that would have done though if all it took was a pair of bolt cutters to gain access to them in the first place.
I'm thinking an armed MP unit would be able to stop a pair of bolt cutters. Unless they are "Super Saddam Infidel-proof", in which case 1 MP and a 9mm would be sufficient.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Excuse #6 (er that aint official as of this post but who knows.)
"Okay, explosives were looted, but nobody can say how much."
Not an excuse at all.
You just want it to be proven true no matter how unplausable it is
Problem is even if explosives were missing that doesnt mean they took ALL the explosives.
Other problem is the plausability of being able to do it after our troops arrived.
Tell us, how do you suppose they did it with all our forces in the area and the roads being constantly used by our forces 24/7
How'd they make it dissapear?
they hire David Copperfeild?
Keep grasping at those straws
Maybe for once you may get a good one someday
-
Originally posted by Nash
The likely scenario is that we're talking about it. It has been absolutely dominating the news cycle for three days now.
your right. and bit by bit, chuck by chunk all allegations saying that somehow it was Bush's failiour are being debunked
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
your right. and bit by bit, chuck by chunk all allegations saying that somehow it was Bush's failiour are being debunked
Is that why so many differing excuses are being fielded every 8-12 hours?
-
Originally posted by rpm
I'm thinking an armed MP unit would be able to stop a pair of bolt cutters. Unless they are "Super Saddam Infidel-proof", in which case 1 MP and a 9mm would be sufficient.
That's true, but we still dont know *when* the explosives were taken, nor do we know *who* took them, at least not yet. Anything else is pure conjecture at this point.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Is that why so many differing excuses are being fielded every 8-12 hours?
Excuses. no
Other possible and certainly by FAR more plausable explainations. yes.
The accusations simply dont fit any kind of logic or plausability.
Sure they had some pictures of SOME explosives.
they have picks of the other 8 bunkers this stuff was stored in too?
Or is that the only 1
There were after all 9 altogether
-
You forgot we know who did'nt plan for securing them.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
dam you elf :lol
:D
-
Here ya go Nash
From your same news source
Oct. 27, 2004 — Iraqi officials may be overstating the amount of explosives reported to have disappeared from a weapons depot, documents obtained by ABC News show.
The Iraqi interim government has told the United States and international weapons inspectors that 377 tons of conventional explosives are missing from the Al-Qaqaa installation, which was supposed to be under U.S. military control.
But International Atomic Energy Agency documents obtained by ABC News and first reported on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" indicate the amount of missing explosives may be substantially less than the Iraqis reported.
The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing — presumably stolen due to a lack of security — was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.
But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.
.
The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003
-
Originally posted by rpm
You forgot we know who did'nt plan for securing them.
You forget that there is NO plan that covers every contigency. (The human variables are just to great). You forget everything except how to find ways to blame Bush for every single thing you can. :)
-
Heh....
Just seconds ago I saw the head of the RNC saying this explosives story is garbage.
When asked about the tape that just emerged showing the explosives were there when the troops invaded, he said (in so many words):
"Yes but you just found out now. So it's wrong for Kerry to have aired an ad when he didn't have the facts at the time".
Yer own guy is now admitting defeat.
I'd love to chat with you more about it, but it seems kinda pointless now doesn't it?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
You forget that there is NO plan that covers every contigency. (The human variables are just to great). You forget everything except how to find ways to blame Bush for every single thing you can. :)
Admit it Elfie, if Kerry had been in charge you would be screaming incompetence. You are just shilling for Bush and refuse to admit a mistake was made on his watch. If terrorists blew up the Statue of Liberty tomorrow you would say it was'nt Bush's fault and try to lay it off on Kerry.
-
Originally posted by rpm
You forgot we know who did'nt plan for securing them.
Oh really? And who would that be?
dont even try to say Bush as that type of planning would be much farther down the chain of command
Maybe its the same person who doesnt plan for securing our own bases here in the
USA .
I personally know of a couple of kids that manage to infiltrate one of our bases on a regular basis and have been since the Clinton administration.
They have come home with the most astounding things ranging from live ammunition to smoke grenades
-
It was on his watch.
Yes / No ?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Admit it Elfie, if Kerry had been in charge you would be screaming incompetence. You are just shilling for Bush and refuse to admit a mistake was made on his watch. If terrorists blew up the Statue of Liberty tomorrow you would say it was'nt Bush's fault and try to lay it off on Kerry.
maybe Alfie wouldl but I sure as hell wouldnt.
As you may or may not have noticed in another post I dont blame Clinton for the blackhawk fiasco.
and if it does turn outhowever unlikely I think it is to be some sort of snafu on our part in this incident I wont be blaming Bush. And I wouldnt be blaming Kerry
I do understand in war you cant plan for everything and humans are imperfect
I do agree with Elfie on the point that you and some others here search for every single thing that you can possibly try to pin on Bush be they true, untrue or a complete distortion of the facts.
You all feel they are true not because they are. but simply because you want them to be.
I have seen the same running the other way as well but not to the extent that I've seen it about Bush
-
Dred, I was'nt directing toward at you and I apologuise if you thought that I did. I saw the earlier post and think you are one of the more levelheaded that post in here. Of course things change in battle and so do plans. But there are some things that are priorities and have to be taken care of.
We were not fighting difficult enemy. There was no fluctuating front lines. We moved "blitzkreig" fashion and the enemy ran. We are not accustomed to fighting this way. The plan worked great, but the were holes in it. Holes like leaving ammo dumps unguarded. You have to look at the bottom line, you'll find the name George W. Bush there.
And I'll freely admit I don't like Dubya. I have'nt liked him since before he ran for Governor and was with the Texas Rangers organization. He was making excuses back then, too. That's fine when the worst mistake you make only causes your team to lose a ballgame. The stakes are much higher now, and so are the consequences.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I do agree with Elfie on the point that you and some others here search for every single thing that you can possibly try to pin on Bush be they true, untrue or a complete distortion of the facts.
You all feel they are true not because they are. but simply because you want them to be.
I have seen the same running the other way as well but not to the extent that I've seen it about Bush
Yer just whining at this point.
-
Originally posted by rpm
It was on his watch.
Yes / No ?
That STILL does not make HIM to blame
that whole arguement is nothing short of pathetic
If a cop lets a criminal go do you fire the police cheif? After all it happened on "his watch"
Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japs During Roosevelts watch
Maybe we shoulda gotten rid of him too
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yer just whining at this point.
not hardly. just telling it like it is
You however, are still grasping at straws:D
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
If a cop lets a criminal go do you fire the police cheif? After all it happened on "his watch".
If the criminal turns out to be a mass murderer, yes.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Dred, I was'nt directing toward at you and I apologuise if you thought that I did. I saw the earlier post and think you are one of the more levelheaded that post in here. Of course things change in battle and so do plans. But there are some things that are priorities and have to be taken care of.
We were not fighting difficult enemy. There was no fluctuating front lines. We moved "blitzkreig" fashion and the enemy ran. We are not accustomed to fighting this way. The plan worked great, but the were holes in it. Holes like leaving ammo dumps unguarded. You have to look at the bottom line, you'll find the name George W. Bush there.
And I'll freely admit I don't like Dubya. I have'nt liked him since before he ran for Governor and was with the Texas Rangers organization. He was making excuses back then, too. That's fine when the worst mistake you make only causes your team to lose a ballgame. The stakes are much higher now, and so are the consequences.
I thank you for the compliment
Contrary to what many may beleive. I have no great love for him(bush) either.
I just like and trust Kerry alot less and
I just dont see Kerry as anything near a viable alternative for a number of reasons which I wont go into here
But I just dont always beleive in the "on his watch" arguement on any number of subjects including this one.
If there is blame to be handed out let it go to the military planner who overlooked this or the commander n the feild who didnt have this carried out.
Thats where the blame should go
I just have my doubts as to the whole credibility of this whole story. Too much stinks about it and its far too old a story for a big hubub to be made now
I wish we had some real choices but we dont. we're stuck with these two idiots
I've looked at them all Problem is I dont like any of the third party people either.
So my choice is either vote of one of these two non choices or dont vote at all.
I'm voting not so much for Bush as I am against Kerry.
But Im in a no win and no loose situation.
No matter who wins we loose.
If Bush wins we at least have somene with the gonads to tell the rest of the world to piss off which is something I have been longing for for a long time as I feel we have been kissing the worlds collective prettythang for far too long and have basically have been nothing but spat on for our troubles
even if I dont like alot of the things he stands for and there is alot I dont like he at least stands by his convictions.
If Kerry wns it at least means no Hillary on 08
Given the fact that the Reps really have nobody in the wings to replace Bush should he win a second term. Hillary would have a real shot.
And I HATE her almost as much as the Dems hate Bush.
My apologies if I seemed overly harsh to you in my comments
-
Originally posted by rpm
Admit it Elfie, if Kerry had been in charge you would be screaming incompetence. You are just shilling for Bush and refuse to admit a mistake was made on his watch. If terrorists blew up the Statue of Liberty tomorrow you would say it was'nt Bush's fault and try to lay it off on Kerry.
I don't have a political agenda rpm, I am NOT voting for the office of President. I wouldnt be screaming incompetence by ANYONE until I had all the facts, that....is a fundamental difference between you and me.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Heh....
Just seconds ago I saw the head of the RNC saying this explosives story is garbage.
When asked about the tape that just emerged showing the explosives were there when the troops invaded, he said (in so many words):
"Yes but you just found out now. So it's wrong for Kerry to have aired an ad when he didn't have the facts at the time".
Yer own guy is now admitting defeat.
I'd love to chat with you more about it, but it seems kinda pointless now doesn't it?
MY own guy?
LOL dont kid yourself. none of the guys are MY guys
He's just spewing rhetoric just like Kerry would and is
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
none of the guys are MY guys
Then why are you trying to act as their personal biatch mouthpeice? Are you even getting paid?
( :) )
-
I think he gets the same as the Kerry campaign pays you Nash.
:p
-
Oh, you must mean the intangible benefit of winning the love and respect of all my peers here . :D
-
Only the truely despretly brain washed Bush lovers are still debating this one.
The absolute truth. Young americans are being blown up by those explosives every single day.
The weapons inspectors new exaclty where it was and what was in it. There was no reason not to set asside 2000 troops to provide some kind of shoot first ask questions later security for the 80 identified sites.
All it takes is imagination and honesty.
But there were not enough troops involved in the invasion of Iraq. Enought to defeat the military but not enough to secure the country.
absolutly fundimentaly the fault of Bush and his neocon pupet masters.
But this was clear way way way before now. Its just fun to watch the brain washed try to lie and wiggle thier way out of the self evident.
-
The absolute truth. Young americans are being blown up by those explosives every single day.
You dont know that for a fact, you are assuming. There is no news release yet that clearly defines what happened with those explosives. Widewing posted information on several ammo/weapons caches found buried in the sand. Somehow I doubt that is an isolated case. Explosives that are killing American soldiers can just as easily come from those types of caches. Just be cause I am not jumping on the *bash Bush again* bandwagon does not make me brainwashed, nor does it imply lying on my part.
All we do know is that at one point the explosives were there, and now they arent. We do not know where they are now, nor do we know who took them or when. Even the amount of explosives in those bunkers is now being questioned. The IEAE guys admit that just because the bunkers were sealed does not mean they were foolproof. There was a link to that article.
The more that comes out about this, the more questions seem to be raised.
I agree, the ammo dumps should have been guarded, but that isnt the job of the front line units. Neither is it the responsibility of GWB to plan for that, it's just not his job. That falls on the shoulders of the generals.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
The absolute truth. Young americans are being blown up by those explosives every single day.
Hmm, responding to this is almost like trying to dig a quarter out of a fresh cow patty. There is some value in there, but its pretty much lost in the crap surrounding it.
First of all for the context of the discussion youve put this in. These are industrial explosives, not ammo, not munitions. You could concevably construct a multitude of diffrent anti-personel devices with explosives. However, in the context of the 4th largest stockpile of weapons being contained in a country the size of california, its like beating on a nail with a wrench with a hundred hammers laying next to you.
The IEDs that are killing americans for the most part are improvised shells and grenades. God forbid these explosives are in the hands of insurgents that know what to do with them, because these are the kinds of materials you drop buildings with, not leave along side the road.
So on one hand this supports the point of the importance of securing the stock, if it was still there to be secured. My point is that its either out of technical ignorance, or misleading partisanship to make a claim like that.
-
geeze, you all are sitting here bashing bush saying that he didnt plan to secure all these ammo storage points (ASP) and that he dropped the ball... the stolen explosives (the ones in mention) are killing americans everyday... rrraaaahhhh (grap the pitchforks and torches).. what about all the munitions that were left behind by the retreating and desserting Iraqi army. lets just say that a mech arty division decided to call it quits.... so how many 152mm guns are there at division level.... that could be alot.. now that is alot of ammo just sitting there. artillery shells can be cut and the explosive removed.. of course its not the VXMS1AC super duper boom boom stuff (or whatever they are calling it now) that is missing. {head is hurting}.. second, how many MPs do you all think are out there right now.. numbers wise... i bet you not enough to guard an ASP, run traffic control points, man POW cages, patrol sectors within cities.. we dont have enough soldiers.. yea maybe bush didnt send enough soldiers... heck we dont have alot of soldiers to begin with... heck lets start the draft again. {head is really hurting} do you all believe that everything you read as 100% error free???.... ok, elvis is alive and well in Iowa.
-
Bush did not plan well!!!
he did not send over three GI's for each Iraqi man, woman, or child..
but skerry will fix that too..
LOL LOL LOL
-
Originally posted by Nash
Then why are you trying to act as their personal biatch mouthpeice? Are you even getting paid?
( :) )
Boards needed a counterbalance to you.
Problem is, I weigh more, And the task is almost too easy;)
-
Pongo blabbered:
The absolute truth. Young americans are being blown up by those explosives every single day.
Wow pongo... just simply... wow.
I can only summise you're trying to get a rise out of "bush supporters" with that one. It's simply too stupid to be anything else.
The sad thing is, you probably think I'm programmed for seeing the pure lies in that statement. It's even sadder that something like this could become partisan rhetoric.