TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Explosives disappear...
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »

we can argue what really happened but everything is just speculation and of little importance poltically.

the effect on the campaign, as covered by the large mainstream media (cnn, washington post, NYT, LA Times, and so forth) is clear: This has reflected negativey on the bush adminstration when he needs to seal the deal with the few waivering and undecided voters. I'm sure Bush did not want to discuss this topic in the waning days of his campaign.

Whatever the facts are, if they are ever made clear, will probably be forgotten by the time the election is over. It's good strategy: through up a charge that can't be disproved for days until after the election. That's the way things go.

I wonder if anything else similar will come up that puts kerry on the defensive and he won't be able to disprove.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo it's called selective reasoning.

Oh the irony!

quote:

you think photographs from one of the many, many bunkers represents the entire 370 tons

It doesn't have to represent the entire 370 tons. What it demonstrates, beyond dount, is that large quantities of the explosives were still in the bunkers during the American occupatation and that they were looted - and could well now be in the hands of terrorists - when they should have been protected.

Besides, the fact that the Americans don't have a clue how much material was in there after the end of the campaign demostrates - whichever way you look at it - a gross failure of duty. The US knew exactly how significant the site was (even if their intelligence agencies didn't know - which they would have - the IAEA listed at as one of their top-priority sites) and the US failed to protect it. Hell, they even failed to open the door and see if the stuff was still in there apparently. So what Bush wants you to accept is that the possibility that some of the material had left the site prior to the conflict somehow renders void the gross negligence involved in failing to secure a site containing weapons that - in the wrong hands - could be used to devastating effect against the US. I mean, wasn't that what we went to war to prevent? Do you feel safe knowing that 370 tons of explosives are circulating somewhere in the Middle-East and that your president doesn't have a fucking clue where they are?

quote:

i just listened to David Kay, just now on News Night with Aaron Brown, look at those same photographs and say "yes, looks like HDX, but that was just one bunker and what i just saw was maybe 1 ton." (paraphrasing)

Bullshit. Here's the transcript. Show me where Kay offers any indication that there was anything less than large quantities of weapons still remaining in the bunker:

quote:

Aaron Brown: We saw at the top of the program there is new information to factor in. Pretty conclusive to our eye. So we'll sort through this now. Take the politics out of it and try and deal with facts with former head UN weapons inspector, US weapons inspector, David Kay. David, it�s nice to see you. David Kay: Good to be with you, Aaron. AB: I don't know how better to do this than to show you some pictures have you explain to me what they are or are not. Okay? First what I�ll just call the seal. And tell me if this is an IAEA seal on that bunker at that munitions dump? DK: Aaron, about as certain as I can be looking at a picture, not physically holding it which, obviously, I would have preferred to have been there, that is an IAEA seal. I've never seen anything else in Iraq in about 15 years of being in Iraq and around Iraq that was other than an IAEA seal of that shape. AB: Was there anything else at the facility that would have been under IAEA seal? DK: Absolutely nothing. It was the HMX, RDX, the two high explosives. AB: OK now, I�ll take a look at barrels here for a second. You can tell me what they tell you. They, obviously, to us just show us a bunch of barrels. You'll see it somewhat differently. DK: Well, it's interesting. There were three foreign suppliers to Iraq of this explosive in the 1980s. One of them used barrels like this, and inside the barrels a bag. HMX is in powder form because you actually use it to shape a spherical lens that is used to create the triggering device for nuclear weapons. And particularly on the videotape, which is actually better than the still photos, as the soldier dips into it, that's either HMX or RDX. I don't know of anything else in al Qaqaa that was in that form. AB: Let me ask you then, David, the question I asked Jamie. In regard to the dispute about whether that stuff was there when the Americans arrived, is it game, set, match? Is that part of the argument now over? DK: Well, at least with regard to this one bunker, and the film shows one seal, one bunker, one group of soldiers going through, and there were others there that were sealed. With this one, I think it is game, set, and match. There was HMX, RDX in there. The seal was broken. And quite frankly, to me the most frightening thing is not only was the seal broken, lock broken, but the soldiers left after opening it up. I mean, to rephrase the so-called pottery barn rule. If you open an arms bunker, you own it. You have to provide security. AB: I'm -- that raises a number of questions. Let me throw out one. It suggests that maybe they just didn't know what they had? DK: I think you're quite likely they didn't know they had HMX, which speaks to lack of intelligence given troops moving through that area, but they certainly knew they had explosives. And to put this in context, I think it's important, this loss of 360 tons, but Iraq is awash with tens of thousands of tons of explosives right now in the hands of insurgents because we did not provide the security when we took over the country. AB: Could you -- I�m trying to stay out of the realm of politics. I'm not sure you can. DK: So am I. AB: I know. It's a little tricky here. But, is there any -- is there any reason not to have anticipated the fact that there would be bunkers like this, explosives like this, and a need to secure them? DK: Absolutely not. For example, al Qaqaa was a site of Gerald Bull's super gun project. It was a team of mine that discovered the HMX originally in 1991. That was one of the most well-documented explosive sites in all of Iraq. The other 80 or so major ammunition storage points were also well documented. Iraq had, and it's a frightening number, two-thirds of the total conventional explosives that the US has in its entire inventory. The country was an armed camp. AB: David, as quickly as you can, because this just came up in the last hour, as dangerous as this stuff is, this would not be described as a WMD, correct? DK: Oh absolutely not. AB: Thank you. DK: And, in fact, the loss of it is not a proliferation issue. AB: Okay. It's just dangerous and its out there and by your thinking it should have been secured. DK: Well look, it was used to bring the Pan Am flight down. It's a very dangerous explosive, particularly in the hands of terrorists. AB: David, thank you for walking me through this. I appreciate it, David Kay the former head US weapons inspector in Iraq.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI.../28/asb.01.html

There was at least one bunker full of munitions, then, that wasn't sealed, plus several bunkers that were still sealed (meaning that they must have been looted after April). There is no way you can get around this: there were still lots of weapons at that site and the US failed to secure them even though it was aware of the significance of the site. You can make up as many numbers as you want or try to cast doubt on their significance, but the facts are clear: large quantities of very dangerous explosives were stolen from here. I don't care how badly brainwashed you are: you cannot skirt around these truths.

quote:

now your doubting a Hi-Res D.O.D. satellite image.

Let me see, on the one hand we have a video demonstrating beyond all doubt that munitions were still at the site in April. On the other hand, we have a picture of some trucks parked by the side of the road. I don't doubt that those are trucks, I just doubt that we can make any inferences from them. Besides, you know what the Pentagon is like identifying trucks on sattelite imagery. Didn't they hand Colin Powell some similar pictures to show the UN as proof that Iraq still had active WMD programs about a month before the above photo was taken?

I just really don't understand you Bush supporters sometimes. You genuinely seem to have absolutely no grasp on reality whatsoever. Regardless of what evidence there is condemning your president, you see absolutely no harm in lying for him, or in unquestioningly accepting any conjectured evidence that may somehow serve absolve him. Instead of calling for greater presidential accountability, you start blaming the Russians and the Syrians without even a shred of evidence supporting these claims. You accept the notion that your president is beyond reproach, accept any old bullshit that helps you foster this belief and you do so with absolutely nothing but blind faith to go on? What the fuck is wrong with you people?

EDIT: - Beaten on the transcript.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange we can argue what really happened but everything is just speculation and of little importance poltically. the effect on the campaign, as covered by the large mainstream media (cnn, washington post, NYT, LA Times, and so forth) is clear: This has reflected negativey on the bush adminstration when he needs to seal the deal with the few waivering and undecided voters. I'm sure Bush did not want to discuss this topic in the waning days of his campaign.

I agree. In fact CBS 60 minutes planned to air this as their main story on Sunday night before the election. Therefore it would allow an entire Monday to beat on the Bush adminstration and influence votes for Tuesday.

Hate to say it but Thanks to the NYtimes for releasing this story about 1 week ahead...it might cool down. I hope.

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec I agree. In fact CBS 60 minutes planned to air this as their main story on Sunday night before the election. Therefore it would allow an entire Monday to beat on the Bush adminstration and influence votes for Tuesday. Hate to say it but Thanks to the NYtimes for releasing this story about 1 week ahead...it might cool down. I hope.

it doesn't help that the administration comments on this speculation and keeps the issue alive in the media, but more importantly, in the minds of voters. they come across as defensive and reactionary. but then again, what can they do? do nothing? i'm not sure if that would be good politically.

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec Until you prove those were the same type of explosives then all you really can do is just stand by one theory while we stand by ours which is an actual Pentagon Satellite Photo.

Neither the IAEA or security experts have questioned the footage and it can be demonstrated that the news crew were in the area of the site at the time the footage was taken:

quote:

Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne Division, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS has determined the crew embedded with the troops may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where the ammunition disappeared. The news crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa, and drove two or three miles north of there with soldiers on April 18, 2003.

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

quote:

Let's see: trucks and heavy equipment massing around a specific site known to contain the exotic explosives.

Wrong:

quote:

The Pentagon also declassified and released a single image, taken by reconnaissance aircraft or satellite just days before the war, showing two trucks outside one of the dozens of storage bunkers at the Al-Qaqaa munitions base. The particular bunker is not one known to have contained any of the missing explosives, and Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said the image only shows that there was some Iraqi activity at the base when it was taken, on March 17. Di Rita said the image says nothing about what happened to the explosives.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/302..._explosi:.shtml

Keep on trying Rummy!

quote:

Or a video from hometown news showing some sorta things that may go boom.

No, not "some sorta things", HMX and RDX. And yes, they most definitely do go "boom".

quote:

Our deals with Russia would never be blown into the public especially with the election on tuesday.My2cents .

Oh please. The first thing the GOP did was to try and link it to the Russians. If there was a shred of evidence of the Russians being involved it would have been trotted out immediately absolve Bush and the Republicans of any blame.

More proof:

quote:

Oct. 28, 2004 � The strongest evidence to date indicates that conventional explosives missing from Iraq's Al-Qaqaa installation disappeared after the United States had taken control of Iraq. Barrels inside the Al-Qaqaa facility appear on videotape shot by ABC television affiliate KSTP of St. Paul, Minn., which had a crew embedded with the 101st Airborne Division when it passed through Al-Qaqaa on April 18, 2003 � nine days after Baghdad fell. Experts who have studied the images say the barrels on the tape contain the high explosive HMX, and the U.N. markings on the barrels are clear. "I talked to a former inspector who's a colleague of mine, and he confirmed that, indeed, these pictures look just like what he remembers seeing inside those bunkers," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington. The barrels were found inside sealed bunkers, which American soldiers are seen on the videotape cutting through. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency sealed the bunkers where the explosives were kept just before the war began. "The seal's critical," Albright said. "The fact that there's a photo of what looks like an IAEA seal means that what's behind those doors is HMX. They only sealed bunkers that had HMX in them." After the bunkers were opened, the 101st was not ordered to secure the facility. A senior officer told ABC News the division would not have had nearly enough soldiers to do so. It remains unclear how much HMX was at the facility, but what does seem clear is that the U.S. military opened the bunkers at Al-Qaqaa and left them unguarded. Since then, the material has disappeared.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304

Soooo let's get this straight. There's video proof of soldiers breaking an IAEA seal on a bunker, sifting through powder in boxes marked by the UN as RMX or HMX explosives, and this is confirmed not only by the UN inspectors who recollect the the scenes depicted by the video but by David Kay as well?

Furthermore we KNOW the Pentagon was monitoring the site with satellites, as evidenced by the single satellite photo they released in an attempt to shift blame, and those two trucks are supposed to account for the 200-400 tons of missing explosives? Wow those Russian special forces sure are efficient ....

As a side note, is there any point to me finishing up my research on Kerry's gun control voting record? I know speedracer isn't going to take note of the facts so I don't want to waste my time.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Soooo let's get this straight. There's video proof of soldiers breaking an IAEA seal on a bunker, sifting through powder in boxes marked by the UN as RMX or HMX explosives, and this is confirmed not only by the UN inspectors who recollect the the scenes depicted by the video but by David Kay as well? Furthermore we KNOW the Pentagon was monitoring the site with satellites, as evidenced by the single satellite photo they released in an attempt to shift blame, and those two trucks are supposed to account for the 200-400 tons of missing explosives? Wow those Russian special forces sure are efficient .... As a side note, is there any point to me finishing up my research on Kerry's gun control voting record? I know speedracer isn't going to take note of the facts so I don't want to waste my time.

Ill give a response early this afternoon ..im driving 2 hours to houston to my parents. I havent forgot and will acknowledge your thought out post.

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec Ill give a response early this afternoon ..im driving 2 hours to houston to my parents. I havent forgot and will acknowledge your thought out post.

Excellent. You reply to my first half, and than I'll post my rebuttal to the rest of the voting record criticism. As I stated, I like to be efficient with my time

Guys guys guys:

SEMMER DOWN NOW


Go to your fabled Eyewintess Five News website: http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

watch the video.

And make up your own mind.



All I can say is that I can't understand why it is a big suprise to some of you that ammo was found at an ammo depot

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Guys guys guys: SEMMER DOWN NOW Go to your fabled Eyewintess Five News website: http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1 watch the video. And make up your own mind. All I can say is that I can't understand why it is a big suprise to some of you that ammo was found at an ammo depot

The big surprise isn't about the fact that there is ammo at an ammo dump ... the big surprise is the fact that the US was warned about the ammo dumps and despite this warning the ammo dumps were left unsecured. It's a pattern of incompetance such as this which provides a rational explanation for why the troops encounter 50+ attacks a day, the majority being road side bombs.

Is retarded behavour such as this in some way acceptable to you?

quote:

320 tons only a fraction of missing weapons U.S. official says "ample evidence" exists that looted arms are being used to attack troops. By Jonathan S. Landay Knight Ridder Washington � The more than 320 tons of missing Iraqi high explosives at center stage in the U.S. presidential election are only a fraction of the weapons-related material that's disappeared in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion last year. Huge amounts of arms and ammunition were stolen from military sites, and there's "ample evidence" that Iraqi insurgents are firing looted weapons at U.S. troops and using some of them in car bombs and improvised explosive devices, said a senior U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity. U.N. officials also are concerned about the disappearance of sensitive equipment and controlled materials that could be used to develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. "If this equipment is finding itself on the open market, then anybody with money can buy it," said Dimitri Perricos, acting head of the U.N. Monitoring and Verification Commission, the U.N. weapons inspection agency. The CIA has convened a "mini task force" of experts to assess precisely what equipment is gone and what threat it could pose if it fell into the wrong hands, said two U.S. officials. In a new disclosure, the senior U.S. military officer and another U.S. official, who also spoke on condition he not be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, said that an Iraqi working for U.S. intelligence alerted U.S. troops stationed near the al Qaqaa weapons facility that the installation was being looted shortly after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003. But, they said, the troops took no action to halt the pillaging. "That was one of numerous times when Iraqis warned us that ammo dumps and other places were being looted and we weren't able to respond because we didn't have anyone to send," said a senior U.S. military officer who served in Iraq. An ABC television station in Minnesota reported that one of its camera crews embedded with the 101st Airborne Division might have filmed some of the high explosives after arriving on al Qaqaa's perimeter on April 18. Experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. agency that was monitoring al Qaqaa because the missing explosives could have been used to trigger a nuclear weapon, are examining the videotape. The disclosure contradicted the Bush administration's suggestion that Saddam's regime may have removed the high explosives between the last U.N. inspection of al Qaqaa on March 15 and the arrival of 3rd Infantry Division troops on April 3. The U.S.-backed interim Iraqi government contends that the high explosives disappeared sometime after the fall of Baghdad on April 9. The Defense Department on Thursday released a satellite photograph taken on March 17 that shows two trucks parked at the al Qaqaa complex, and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said U.S. reconnaissance would have detected any effort to loot the complex. Many U.S. officials and experts blame the massive disappearance of Iraqi weapons materials on the Pentagon's failure to anticipate the waves of lawlessness after Saddam's ouster. http://www.news-leader.com/today/1029-320tonsonl-214035.html

pentagon news conference in progress now explaining the photo



will the local ABC news network/Kerry Campaign hold a news conference of their own to explain the video?

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec pentagon news conference in progress now explaining the photo

...and they are doing a terrible job. The first person to speack was rambling, nervous, and unfocused. The second speaker, Major Austin Pearson, is a poor public speaker, even theough he might have been credible because looks like hey may have been there. Their message so far seems convoluted.

The adminstration is totally off their game sending these two amateurs.

Like i wrote before, the admin is just keeping this issue alive by responding like this. They can only offer speculation and not real answers, and are unlikely to quite any criticism or media attention. If Bush loses by the slimest of margins, i think this may a be a factor. This is totally inept spin management and i'm totally surprised. Karen Hughes must be fuming.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange ...and they are doing a terrible job. The first person to speack was rambling, nervous, and unfocused. The second speaker, Major Austin Pearson, is a poor public speaker, even theough he might have been credible because looks like hey may have been there. Their message so far seems convoluted. The adminstration is totally off their game sending these two amateurs. Like i wrote before, the admin is just keeping this issue alive by responding like this. They can only offer speculation and not real answers, and are unlikely to quite any criticism or media attention. If Bush loses by the slimest of margins, i think this may a be a factor. This is totally inept spin management and i'm totally surprised. Karen Hughes must be fuming.

It's in lock-step with Rove's interview last night. Rove, a normally cool and collective guy under nearly all circumstances, was stumbling on his words and decided to focus not on the damning ABC newspiece, but on the NYTimes article posted on Wednesday, saying they were being presumptuous. I guess that's about as much of an admission of guilt by default as you're gonna get from Rove. Clearly not in his element.

To be honest I've never seen this Administration so caught off-guard and flat-footed in the last 4 years. And as you stated, their spin is only prolonging it out - 5 days now and counting, and I doubt it will die down much over the weekend. Even if it does, it's impact will have already taken place.

What a beautiful week this has been.

what does eveyone think the poltical impact will be of this whole story and the handling by the administration, and the use by the kerry campaign. in my view that's what really matters here, politically, in these waning days of the campaign

EDIT

the pentagon press core is having a field day with these amateurs. why did the admin send these guys? what were they thinking? the presidency is hanging in the balance and they send in these two chumps? this is insane

Heh Bush is getting hammered from all sides. Looks like we have not so good econ data this week. Lower than forecasted GDP, high claims for unemployment, and low consumer confidence. I'll have to update the econ thread when I get home tonight ...

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange what does eveyone think the poltical impact will be of this whole story and the handling by the administration, and the use by the kerry campaign. in my view that's what really matters here, politically, in these waning days of the campaign

Honestly I really don't think this will garner too many votes towards Kerry, but it may garner just enough, however. Most folks have made up their minds long ago, even a good portion of those so-called "undecideds". As a handful of pundits have explained, this really isn't a tipping point/surprise solitary event occurring, but rather just a part of a series of events clearly demonstrating the ineptitude and shortsightedness of this Administration rushing off to war without a real plan involved.

But again, it may have just enough of an impact to tip a few voters towards Kerry, but I think it could be argued that Kerry had plenty of momentum going into the final week without this story anyway.

i agree. i'm sure this is not the last impression the adminstration wanted to leave on the minds of the very few undecided voters. the weekend is here, attentions will drift away from the campaign. the weekend news coverage will still cover this as evidence of adminstration ineptitude in the iraq campaign.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange i agree. i'm sure this is not the last impression the adminstration wanted to leave on the minds of the very few undecided voters. the weekend is here, attentions will drift away from the campaign. the weekend news coverage will still cover this as evidence of adminstration ineptitude in the iraq campaign.

I think it was a good point - that all the facts are unknown and it is yet to be known the picture.
They made it misty - and showed that the liberals are jumping to conclusions (something they accuse the Republicans of doing with Iraq).

Good approach. I don't want a politican that ignores the facts or is impatient to wait for them and acts without knowing the truth. I thought thats why you guys didn't like Bush..
I guess now its so much for the alternative as well

Hehe ok so what I gather from the press conference is:

The weapons that were stolen, that we said were stolen before we got there, that the Russians helped ship to Syria, that were shown on tape as being there after our soldiers were there, that were really only 3 tons not 300, were really 200 tons that we destroyed, but seemed to have forgotten doing so until now.

Riiiiigghhht. This reminds me of the apprentice where everyone is trying to come up with excuses for how they're not retarded.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well lookey lookey ... what do we have here? I love it when I hit jackpot.

what's wrong Occrider?

Not so confident anymore.

From the press conference:
"We've destoryed 400,000 TONS of ammunition in Iraq"
"We've destroyed approximately 250 tons at the ammo depot" - this was done on April 13th.

"Its taking us a little time to gather all the details to find out exactly what happened to less than 1/1000 of the ammunition we have destoryed in Iraq"

"There have been other taskforces that were given orders to secure the ammo depot after the 3rd ID was ordered to destroy all easily accessable ammo at the site"

No seals were found at site by the 3rd ID when they destoryed the 250 tons of ammo.


I'm sorry, but I can't see where the ball exactly was dropped here?
At what time exactly should the military have done what they had not done?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus what's wrong Occrider? Not so confident anymore. From the press conference: "We've destoryed 400,000 TONS of ammunition in Iraq" "We've destroyed approximately 250 tons at the ammo depot" - this was done on April 13th. "Its taking us a little time to gather all the details to find out exactly what happened to less than 1/1000 of the ammunition we have destoryed in Iraq" "There have been other taskforces that were given orders to secure the ammo depot after the 3rd ID was ordered to destroy all easily accessable ammo at the site" No seals were found at site by the 3rd ID when they destoryed the 250 tons of ammo. I'm sorry, but I can't see where the ball exactly was dropped here? At what time exactly should the military have done what they had not done?

How am any less confident?

quote:

A U.S. Army officer came forward Friday and said a team from the 3rd Infantry Division took about 250 tons of munititions and military material from the Al-Qaqaa (search) munitions base soon after Saddam Hussein's regime fell last year. Explosives were included in the load taken by the team but Major Austin Pearson said he was unable to say what percentage it accounted for. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137017,00.html

So basically they rounded up someone who's duty it was to simply make the supply depot a "safe" place for troops. He destroyed 250 tons of munitions at the camp not necessarily the explosives in question. Never mind the other 120 tons of the explosives in question that the Pentagon does not take into account. Furthermore, you've been unable to dispute the pattern of looting due to insufficient troop levels as evidenced by the knightridder article I posted before.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider How am any less confident?

You've gone on the defensive again, not the offense. Don't pretend you don't know what I mean

quote:

So basically they rounded up someone who destroyed 250 tons of munitions at the camp not necessarily the explosives in question.

Not just somebody - somebody who destoryed 250 tons of ammo the day after the 101st arrived there.

It was also made quiet clear in the press conference that the 101st was incharge of securing the facility and that many other forces followed after the 101st and 3rd ID to secure and destory remaing ammunitions.

quote:

Never mind the other 120 tons of the explosives in question that the Pentagon does not take into account.

What other 120 tons?

The 250 tons of ammo destory was clearly not part of the 350 alleged missing ammo of the IAEA. The Major quiet poniantely noted if some of the ammo was destroyed of the 350 alleged in the 250 he destroyed it reperesented only a small precent, and it was unbeknownst to them.

quote:

Furthermore, you've been unable to dispute the pattern of looting due to insufficient troop levels as evidenced by the knightridder article I posted before.

Which article? Repost link. Theres to many can't keep track.
Obviously there will be loading in a country with so much ammo. With 400,000 tons of ammo destroyed to present (assuming there is more and that some was used during the war itself) that means even at the high manpower levels of 500,000 that were requested. It would be about 1 soldier guarding 1 ton of ammunition. Still insufficient to prevent all looting.

All I am saying is that under the circumstance the military followed procedure and did the best job possible.

What we do know is that Iraqis have been moving ammo from ammo depots pre-war. And that American planes have bombed many Iraqi ammo sites during the war.

It is not hard to understand how a small percentage of ammo that is unaccounted for should be known to us. I don't know how anyone can make the claim that it was looted, or that it was not looted, and if it was looted how much at this point and time. Thats just ridicilous.

What's even sillier is pinning this down as Bush's fault for some reason. Like the guy should be playing "soldiers" with the military and telling his 5 stars how to run Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus You've gone on the defensive again, not the offense. Don't pretend you don't know what I mean

I never play defense

quote:

Not just somebody - somebody who destoryed 250 tons of ammo the day after the 101st arrived there. It was also made quiet clear in the press conference that the 101st was incharge of securing the facility and that many other forces followed after the 101st and 3rd ID to secure and destory remaing ammunitions. What other 120 tons? The 250 tons of ammo destory was clearly not part of the 350 alleged missing ammo of the IAEA. The Major quiet poniantely noted if some of the ammo was destroyed of the 350 alleged in the 250 he destroyed it reperesented only a small precent, and it was unbeknownst to them.

It appears we're rolling several arguments into one. First, the main issue is the 370 tons of extra-dangerous explosives the IAEA warned us about. It seems pretty clear that the evidence that the Pentagon presented does not absolve themselves from guilt for the missing explosives.

Maj. Austin Pearson acknowledged removing 250 tons of TNT, plastic explosives, detonation cords, and white phosporous rounds. These 250 tons however, �were not located under the seal of the International Atomic Energy Agency - as the missing high-grade explosives had been.�

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20.../D8617K4O1.html

So essentially the Pentagon is trying to deflect blame by saying they blew some some stuff up, when in fact they did not destroy the explosives in question. Even if the entire 250 tons were the explosives in question, there still is the missing 120 tons to take into account.

quote:

Which article? Repost link. Theres to many can't keep track. Obviously there will be loading in a country with so much ammo. With 400,000 tons of ammo destroyed to present (assuming there is more and that some was used during the war itself) that means even at the high manpower levels of 500,000 that were requested. It would be about 1 soldier guarding 1 ton of ammunition. Still insufficient to prevent all looting. All I am saying is that under the circumstance the military followed procedure and did the best job possible. What we do know is that Iraqis have been moving ammo from ammo depots pre-war. And that American planes have bombed many Iraqi ammo sites during the war. It is not hard to understand how a small percentage of ammo that is unaccounted for should be known to us. I don't know how anyone can make the claim that it was looted, or that it was not looted, and if it was looted how much at this point and time. Thats just ridicilous.

Oh, I�m not entirely blaming the military for this. I think they are doing as good of a job they can with the resources they have been provided. And if they had been given more resources, perhaps they might not have been able to prevent all the looting, but they most certainly could have responded to situations such as the Al Qaqaa incident and similar situations going on across the country:

quote:

320 tons only a fraction of missing weapons U.S. official says "ample evidence" exists that looted arms are being used to attack troops. By Jonathan S. Landay Knight Ridder . . . In a new disclosure, the senior U.S. military officer and another U.S. official, who also spoke on condition he not be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, said that an Iraqi working for U.S. intelligence alerted U.S. troops stationed near the al Qaqaa weapons facility that the installation was being looted shortly after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003. But, they said, the troops took no action to halt the pillaging. "That was one of numerous times when Iraqis warned us that ammo dumps and other places were being looted and we weren't able to respond because we didn't have anyone to send," said a senior U.S. military officer who served in Iraq. http://www.news-leader.com/today/10...onl-214035.html

Clearly part of the problem is that there simply aren�t enough troops to do a proper job.

quote:

What's even sillier is pinning this down as Bush's fault for some reason. Like the guy should be playing "soldiers" with the military and telling his 5 stars how to run Iraq.

Ahhh but the Bush administration is the origin of the problem. You say that Bush shouldn�t be playing �soldier� with the military and telling his generals how to run Iraq, but that�s EXACTLY what Rumsfeld did. Not only did he fight with his generals to lower the amount of troops sent, but the Bush administration only assigned a general to do the post war planning a mere month before the invasion. You can read all about the ridiculous clusterfuck in this report:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm

PS - the 250 tons of munitions the US destroyed took place on April 13, 2003. The video shot by KSTP showing the IAEA seals being broken and alllll those HMX/RMX explosives was filmed on April 18, 2003. Is that offensive enough for you?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider It appears we're rolling several arguments into one. First, the main issue is the 370 tons of extra-dangerous explosives the IAEA warned us about.

Where are you getting 370 from? For sake of consistancy. Lets not play games and use the 350 ton figure as its more popular.
The 350 tons was just an approximation as well. There is no documentation of what the 350 is and if at one time they are the same as another.

quote:

It seems pretty clear that the evidence that the Pentagon presented does not absolve themselves from guilt for the missing explosives.

Nor still is there any evidence indicating any of the 350 tons of explosive was still there after the launch of the war.

quote:

These 250 tons however, �were not located under the seal of the International Atomic Energy Agency - as the missing high-grade explosives had been.�

Nor did Major Austin Pearson say that he say any seals of the IAEA there. More likely than not had he seen the IAEA marked explosives he would have destoryed them.

The fact that he did not see the IAEA seal however does not prove anything for either side. It does not prove that the weapons were there, nor does it prove that they were not there (though it does lend a bit of credibility to the latter).

quote:

So essentially the Pentagon is trying to deflect blame by saying they blew some some stuff up, when in fact they did not destroy the explosives in question.

Well the "blame" was that the Pentagon did not secure or destory ammunition at the site - that they were negligent. All the Pentagon said today is, "No, no we're not".

It proved this by saying 101 was incharge of security for the area, and 3rd ID was incharge of disposing of most accessible ammo. They also mentioned later that other taskforces recieved similar assignments later.

quote:

Even if the entire 250 tons were the explosives in question, there still is the missing 120 tons to take into account.

Again, you are using a falious assumption that all 350 tons of IAEA marked explosives were actually at the site.

quote:

Oh, I�m not entirely blaming the military for this. I think they are doing as good of a job they can with the resources they have been provided.

Ok, than I win

The argument here was that the military was incompetent because of their leadership - clearly the military is not incompetent in this specific regard.

quote:

And if they had been given more resources, perhaps they might not have been able to prevent all the looting, but they most certainly could have responded to situations such as the Al Qaqaa incident and similar situations going on across the country:

Meassure the amount of ammo that the terrorist most likely stole I am sure it does not account to more than 1% of all ammo available. Having such a rate although we don't want any ammo to be stolen, is a very good figure.

But until we can say for certain say that terrorist have stolen 1000 tons of explosive, this argument is also just pure speculation.

I haven't heard an account from a terrorist saying we've gotten so and so much ammo because 2 months ago coaltion forces are incompetent at gaurding the ammo depot. I haven't heard such an account from the other side (where I'd expect to hear it from, although credibility would than be an issue). I have only heard this argument from reporters, opinionsts, etc in the west.

quote:

Clearly part of the problem is that there simply aren�t enough troops to do a proper job.

Again there is no objective way to prove that there is a problem at current. Unless you can really say that terrorist have stolen say 40,000 tons of explosives since the end of the war. That would be say 5% of all arnaments in Iraq, and that would indeed be a problem. You can't stop however terrorist from getting weapons in a country full of weapons, no matter how hard you try, and no matter if you had twice the amount of troops.

Clearly current generals IN COMMAND have repeated numerously that troop levels are sufficient. Considering the large budget and resources dedicated to Iraq I don't see why the current leadership would not have given the military more men if they needed them.

quote:

Ahhh but the Bush administration is the origin of the problem. You say that Bush shouldn�t be playing �soldier� with the military and telling his generals how to run Iraq, but that�s EXACTLY what Rumsfeld did.

Than you agree - Bush isn't playing soldier, Rummy is.
And well that is fine - Rummy is the Secretary of State, he's one step below the Commander and Chief and he has knowledge of the military and is acting in balance and counterweight to the joint chiefs.

quote:

Not only did he fight with his generals to lower the amount of troops sent, but the Bush administration only assigned a general to do the post war planning a mere month before the invasion. You can read all about the ridiculous clusterfuck in this report: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm

The problem with such reports is that by nature they are unfair.
They are one sided. Those in power and action will not comment and disclose their views on this matter until there term is over.

All those who have resigned or were on conrast to the current way things were done will make it heard.

The real truth to these arguments unforunately will only come out the years following both the term of Rummy, Bush, and those generals in charge.

Only than will we have BOTH sides of the argument, and although you might not believe the other side, the middle ground will surely it will not look so appalling.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.