Author Topic: 101st:"We were never ordered to search" (Read 2084 times)

Elfie · « **Reply #45 on:** October 27, 2004, 11:08:59 PM »

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.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #46 on:** October 27, 2004, 11:16:39 PM »

Quote

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!

Elfie · « **Reply #47 on:** October 27, 2004, 11:20:13 PM »

Quote

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.

Thrawn · « **Reply #48 on:** October 27, 2004, 11:46:21 PM »

Quote

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.

Thrawn · « **Reply #49 on:** October 27, 2004, 11:50:31 PM »

Quote

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

Pongo · « **Reply #50 on:** October 27, 2004, 11:51:16 PM »

Quote

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

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.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #51 on:** October 27, 2004, 11:53:03 PM »

Quote

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.

Thrawn · « **Reply #52 on:** October 28, 2004, 12:00:10 AM »

Quote

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?

rpm · « **Reply #53 on:** October 28, 2004, 12:01:23 AM »

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.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #54 on:** October 28, 2004, 12:03:55 AM »

Quote

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.

jamusta · « **Reply #55 on:** October 28, 2004, 12:06:03 AM »

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.

AKIron · « **Reply #56 on:** October 28, 2004, 12:07:31 AM »

Quote

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.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #57 on:** October 28, 2004, 12:08:04 AM »

Quote

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

rpm · « **Reply #58 on:** October 28, 2004, 12:14:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Watch the show and tell me I'm wrong.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #59 on:** October 28, 2004, 12:15:52 AM »

Quote

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