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

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec 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?

Whats funny is that ABC is some type of affiliate to FOX...

My day just keeps getting better!:

quote:

Al Qaqaa was on a classified list of Iraqi weapons facilities that the CIA provided to Pentagon and military officials before the invasion, said the U.S. intelligence official. But when the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command produced their own list of sites that a limited number of U.S. "exploitation teams" should search, priority was given to those identified by exiled Iraqi opposition groups, he said. Al Qaqaa wasn't one of them. http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentuck...cs/10040891.htm

Boy the Sunday mornin' talk shows are gonna be a spectacle. I'm gonna have to get over my hangover to get my ass up to watch 'em!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 My day just keeps getting better!: Boy the Sunday mornin' talk shows are gonna be a spectacle. I'm gonna have to get over my hangover to get my ass up to watch 'em!

What are you talking about?

No WMD were found at Alqaqa. So CIA was wrong

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus What are you talking about? No WMD were found at Alqaqa. So CIA was wrong

Oops, let me add one more sentence to my original post so we can examine in full context:

quote:

Al Qaqaa was on a classified list of Iraqi weapons facilities that the CIA provided to Pentagon and military officials before the invasion, said the U.S. intelligence official. But when the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command produced their own list of sites that a limited number of U.S. "exploitation teams" should search, priority was given to those identified by exiled Iraqi opposition groups, he said. Al Qaqaa wasn't one of them. "The top of the list was dominated by nuclear facilities and places where we expected to find chemical and biological weapons," he said. "Iraqi exiles had a very heavy hand in determining which places got looked at first."

So the CIA put it on a high priority list, but when passed down to the Pentagon to search a number of sites by a "limited number of exploitation teams", Al Qaqaa was removed from the list. The top of the list was dominated by places they expected to find chem. and biol. WMD, so the Pentagon selectively removed nearly all other non-WMD supposed sites as a result of a "limited number of exploitation teams". So the following conclusions that follow jumps out:

1. Since this site and other high-priority weapons and explosives sites got removed from Pentagon list, this further demonstrates a lack of troops available to successfully check all sites passed down from intelligence to the Pentagon.

2. What's more, they were once again misled by Chalabi's bullshit exiled group, whom we are fully aware of their history of distortions.

Ouch.

Some notables about Knight Ridder and their coverage in the Iraq War:

quote:

Strobel says their conclusions came from a lot of extra digging and source-building they were forced to do without the red-carpet access to high-level officials that some of the nation's top media outlets enjoy. "Knight Ridder is not, in some people's eyes, seen as playing in the same ball field as the New York Times and some major networks," Strobel says. "People at the Times were mainly talking to senior administration officials, who were mostly pushing the administration line. We were mostly talking to the lower-level people or dissidents, who didn't necessarily repeat the party line." Those sources, Knight Ridder Washington Editor Clark Hoyt adds, were "closest to the information." "I'm not saying we didn't have any top-level sources," Strobel says, "but we also made a conscious effort to talk to people more in the bowels of government who have a less political approach to things." Their effort paid off in the fall of 2002, when a story critical of the administration's case for war generated a small, but encouraging, response. "We got two or three unsolicited calls from people in government saying, 'You're asking the right questions. Keep it up,'" Landay recalls. ... "As the pressure built on the administration and their case got shakier and shakier, there was obviously a lot greater stress, and there was some shouting that was done at us over the telephone," Hoyt says. Some of those calls came from well-known names in high places, Bureau Chief John Walcott adds, declining to drop any names. Around that time, the White House turned up the pressure, Strobel says, and "tried to freeze us out of briefings." Landay adds: "I think this administration may have a fairly punitive policy when it comes to journalists who get in their face. And if you talk to some White House reporters, there is a fear of losing access." He says that fear may have played into the relatively uncritical approach of news organizations like the Times. http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=3725

Sure is nice to have my hometown KCStar around.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Oops, let me add one more sentence to my original post so we can examine in full context:

It didn't add anything really.

quote:

1. Since this site and other high-priority weapons and explosives sites got removed from Pentagon list, this further demonstrates a lack of troops available to successfully check all sites passed down from intelligence to the Pentagon.

This as Rumsfeld has already critized about the US army does not mean that there was need of more manpower. What there is more need of is specialist and people in proper positions.

It does not mean that the USA had say 80 groups of specialist and decided to leave half of the specialist groups in the USA just to be dumb. I'm sure all 80 groups were in Iraq.

quote:

2. What's more, they were once again misled by Chalabi's bullshit exiled group, whom we are fully aware of their history of distortions.

The CIA has a history of distortions too.
I don't understands whats the big deal with the Pentagon deciding the mertis of the intelligence it gets. I'm glad they aren't just accepting intelligence defacto based on the name of the source.

Further, this is the testament of one individual. I am sure you can find a counter testament by another individual if you want.

quote:

Ouch.

Did you hurt yourself?

Great posts by MisterOpus1 and Occrider. I don't know how you have the energy to rebut all the conservative, neocon jackasses who spew forth-endless amount of gibberish, innuendos, and distortions. Just as you get finished dismantling one of their outlandish post they're on to another excuse or kerry accusation.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Whats funny is that ABC is some type of affiliate to FOX...

First of all, it would be "affiliate of..."

Second of all, it is? If I'm not mistaken, ABC is owned by Disney, while Fox is owned by...Fox. Am I missing something or are you just throwing mud around aimlessly?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus It didn't add anything really.

I'm glad it's because you say so.

quote:

This as Rumsfeld has already critized about the US army does not mean that there was need of more manpower. What there is more need of is specialist and people in proper positions. It does not mean that the USA had say 80 groups of specialist and decided to leave half of the specialist groups in the USA just to be dumb. I'm sure all 80 groups were in Iraq.

Uh, I call bullshit here - Rumsfeld was DIRECTLY responsible for the number of troops deployed, AS WELL as specialist groups. How on earth are you trying to pass the buck off of Rummy? And furthermore, Rummy HIMSELF has declared the necessity and desire to have a sized-down specialized military army himself, NOT the reverse. If you can dig up any info. pertaining to Rummy desiring a bigger military, I'd be obliged to see it.

The bottom line is it's all about deployment, specialist groups or not - they did NOT have enough individuals to secure the sites as well as check for explosives and non-WMD. They deemed that as not as important as the WMD search, and that has come back to bite them in the ass.

quote:

The CIA has a history of distortions too.

Well it certainly didn't appear to be the case this time now did it? And what's more, they had no reason NOT to believe CIA intelligence at that time. But it was clear that Chalabi, whom was good friends with the non-military personel in the Pentagon (namely Feith, Wolfowitz, and Rummy), had superceded ALL other intelligence.

Yet another stupid move by this Administration to listen to this lying bastard.

quote:

I don't understands whats the big deal with the Pentagon deciding the mertis of the intelligence it gets. I'm glad they aren't just accepting intelligence defacto based on the name of the source.

Hmm, like they did with Chalabi? I think the Pentagon should weigh the merits of its intelligence also, but it's clear that if they had enough troops there in the first place, regardless of whether or not they were specialty services, they would have been able to secure non-WMD related sites more efficiently. Clearly that was not the case.

quote:

Further, this is the testament of one individual. I am sure you can find a counter testament by another individual if you want.

I'm curious to see whether you can come up with an intelligence official that can clearly state otherwise. The Fox News reporter today at the Pentagon briefing was trying desperately to have the Major downplay the case, but the Major simply couldn't give in - he had to state that he couldn't verify that the material was the RMX/MDX stuff in question (and as Occ pointed out, it was a moot point to begin with considering their detonations were 5 days later on April 18th).

quote:

Did you hurt yourself?

Cute.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus 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.

Ok 350 � 370 I guess there�s no difference in the grand scale of things.

quote:

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

Ahem yes there is evidence. The video footage clearly shows the IAEA seals being clipped off along with the explosives with the IAEA markings on them. But don�t listen to me, listen to the weapons inspector Bush sent to Iraq:

quote:

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

This view is consistent with the views of other weapons inspectors:

quote:

Weapons experts familiar with the work of the international inspectors in Iraq say the videotape appears identical to photographs that the inspectors took of the explosives, which were put under seal before the war. One frame shows what the experts say is a seal, with narrow wires that would have to be broken if anyone entered through the main door of the bunker. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/p...artner=homepage

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.
[/quote]

And he wasn�t looking for them. His job was to simply destroy loose munitions to make the area safe for US troops.

quote:

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).

It�s far more credible that they were there than they weren�t with the all the evidence and first hand accounts that we have.

quote:

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.

They were negligent because nobody was tasked to immediately secure and/or destroy weapons and supplies that could be stolen and later used against US forces. The fact that troops broke open supply stores and allowed Iraqis to freely enter to take what they will was negligent.

quote:

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

There�s no indication that the explosives ever left that site. This is bolstered by the fact that some of the explosives were directly videotaped.

quote:

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.

They were incompetent because of poor leadership. That leadership goes straight up to the administration and top military commanders. There were no orders to properly secure this weapons site despite advanced warning from the IAEA.

quote:

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.

Ummm you expect a terrorist to give a news conference saying how easy it is to loot supply depots? And this would be good for him how? You�re dismissing the words of troops on the ground who are saying that they can�t respond to reports of looting because they don�t have enough troops and you�re looking for confirmation from the terrorists???

quote:

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.

If it�s not a problem than why is the Pentagon analyzing this as a problem? It�s asinine to suggest that sending more troops will accomplish nothing with respect to securing weapons depots when troops are complaining about not having the resource to stop looters when they are reported.

quote:

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.

Well based on the kightridder article, it seems that the generals in command have to haggle with the Pentagon and Rumsfeld to get to the point where they agree on something. So while they technically have all the troops that they requested, that may not be what they desire. And it seems obvious why the current leadership would not want to provide more military men � you should know the answer to that.

quote:

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.

Huh? So it�s wrong for the commander in chief, a civilian, to micromanage the military, but it�s ok for the secretary of defense, a civilian, to micromanage the military? Particularly since Rumsfeld is pretty much going to do whatever Bush tells him? Clearly Rumsfeld went against the advice of generals, the army war college, and nearly every other intelligence institution who all correctly warned Iraq would descend into chaos and that�s fine? You say Bush shouldn�t micromanage the troops because he�s not qualified, and now you�re supporting Rumsfeld for micromanaging the troops when he�s clearly not qualified as evidenced by the repercussions of his decisions.

quote:

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.

The administration has often come out against claims that they felt were unfair. This whole issue about the explosives for instance. However, your portrayal of this whole affair is inaccurate: for months we�ve heard from this administration that they�ve planned everything fine, that all the commanders were getting what they want, we did nothing wrong, blah blah blah blah � these accounts from the KnightRidder article are the OTHER side.

Didn't Kerry say there was only 2 tons stolen? What a lie

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ahem yes there is evidence. The video footage clearly shows the IAEA seals being clipped off along with the explosives with the IAEA markings on them.

Ok I watched the tape twice. All I see is some guys cutting a lock to get into a bunker. Where is that infamous IAEA seal??? I'll take your word for it, but I couldn't see it for the life of me when I was watching.

quote:

And he wasn�t looking for them. His job was to simply destroy loose munitions to make the area safe for US troops.

Well if they were weapons were broken into and left unlocked and vunerable as you say, those 350 tons would qualify as munitions to be destoryed under his job decsription.

quote:

It�s far more credible that they were there than they weren�t with the all the evidence and first hand accounts that we have.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to jump to any conclusions.
My gutt tells me the real truth lies somewhere in the middle.

quote:

They were negligent because nobody was tasked to immediately secure and/or destroy weapons and supplies that could be stolen and later used against US forces.

The 101 was tasked to secure the site. The 3rd ID was tasked with destorying the munitions. The Pentagon mentioned other taskforces were than assigned these duties - they are finding out who and when now and will let us know when they find out.

How is this negligent?

After observing that the site was secure or that it posed little to no threat (surely if a ground commander would have said THIS IS A BIG THREAT I REFUSE TO MOVE BEFORE SOMETHING MORE IS DONE - something more would be done)

quote:

The fact that troops broke open supply stores and allowed Iraqis to freely enter to take what they will was negligent.

Its not a fact that the troops "allowed Iraqis to freely enter to take what they will", its your opinion.

quote:

There�s no indication that the explosives ever left that site. This is bolstered by the fact that some of the explosives were directly videotaped.

There is no evidence that all explosives left at the site.
My question if the video does show one seal as you mention, why is it only one seal? Wouldn't they store the same types of ammo, or at least a couple crates (we are talking 350 tons after all) together? How come the video didn't catch more than one seal if it did catch it (again I couldn't see any seal...)

quote:

They were incompetent because of poor leadership. That leadership goes straight up to the administration and top military commanders.

Look, leadership also goes from the ground up. If US soldiers - the same one that are complaining now that nothing is being done about gaurding the ammo dumps would have complained back than that the ammo dumps pose a major secruity threat, something would have been done.

US military leadership is dynamic. It is not a top-down approach. It is a symbosis for the top - the overall strategy and the bottom - the commander in the field. The commander in the field has A LOT of power in his theater.

quote:

There were no orders to properly secure this weapons site despite advanced warning from the IAEA.

Right, and this is of course Rumsfeld and Bushs fault obviously

quote:

Ummm you expect a terrorist to give a news conference saying how easy it is to loot supply depots?

Yes, the Palestinians do it all the time. And I've seen Afghans boast about it too.

[quotes]
If it�s not a problem than why is the Pentagon analyzing this as a problem?[/quote]

Ever heard of six sigma? 1% error is still 1% error.

[quotes] So while they technically have all the troops that they requested, that may not be what they desire.[/quote]

As in C&C there is always a limit to how many forces you can have.
No matter what, it will never be enough, it will never be perfect.

quote:

And it seems obvious why the current leadership would not want to provide more military men � you should know the answer to that.

Why? If I was the current leadership I'd send more troops just to keep you guys shut up about the issue.

Current leadership is a damn if you do, damn if you don't on this issue. People will complain that too many troops are there if they send more, and people will complain that there aren't enough troops if they don't. So I believe they'll do whats damn better.

quote:

Huh? So it�s wrong for the commander in chief, a civilian, to micromanage the military, but it�s ok for the secretary of defense, a civilian, to micromanage the military?

I fail to see how deciding on a large strategic decision such as the number of forces to on campaign exactly qualifies as "micomanagement".

Perhaps you could enlighten me?

quote:

However, your portrayal of this whole affair is inaccurate: for months we�ve heard from this administration that they�ve planned everything fine, that all the commanders were getting what they want, we did nothing wrong, blah blah blah blah � these accounts from the KnightRidder article are the OTHER side.

Again, link to KnightRidder?
Personally I've always heard the opposition. The party line is the party line true, but you don't hear how it is formulated and why. You do hear the critism of these forumaltions though. Hence my point..


Anyway, I'm sort of getting bored of this debate. Maybe they'll release some new news over the weekend to get me heated up. I'll be off for halloween - so don't think you've won if I don't reply

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Ok I watched the tape twice. All I see is some guys cutting a lock to get into a bunker. Where is that infamous IAEA seal??? I'll take your word for it, but I couldn't see it for the life of me when I was watching.

Well now that you mentioned it, I didn't really take notice of an "infamous" IAEA seal either. You know what, maybe we should treat our intuitive opinions as fact. I mean really, who are David Kay and other weapons inspectors to override our own unexpert evaluations? Nothing I saw looked like an IAEA seal or description to me ... similarly what they said was RMX and HMX explosives didn't look like any kind of explosive to me. Therefore they have no case. While we're on this topic, It didn't look like an airplane had made such a small hole in the pentagon, so it must have been a missile. Who's in a better position to be right, me with my own eyes, or an expert who knows what he's talking about? Clearly me right?

quote:

Well if they were weapons were broken into and left unlocked and vunerable as you say, those 350 tons would qualify as munitions to be destoryed under his job decsription.

Yea, except the weapons weren't broken into and left unlocked. The munitions that were detonated occurred a week before the video footage of the RMX and HMX explosives. Pearson clearly exploded any munitions that were in the open and posed a danger to troops. Following that duty, troops investigated, and broke into weapons depots that were left unsecured in the aftermath and subsequentely stolen.

quote:

I don't know about you, but I don't want to jump to any conclusions. My gutt tells me the real truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The "gutt" hardly qualifies as an appropriate indicator of probablility. There are plenty of people who have "gutt" instincts that 9/11 conspiracy theories are factual, however, that has absolutely no logical influence on the correct conclusion based upon the wealth of evidence that indicates otherwise. Similarly, there has been no convincing evidence whatsoever to prove that these explosives were ever moved prior to the invasion ... particularly since we have video proof and expert opinion that validates the fact that these explosives were present after the invasion.

quote:

The 101 was tasked to secure the site. The 3rd ID was tasked with destorying the munitions. The Pentagon mentioned other taskforces were than assigned these duties - they are finding out who and when now and will let us know when they find out. How is this negligent? After observing that the site was secure or that it posed little to no threat (surely if a ground commander would have said THIS IS A BIG THREAT I REFUSE TO MOVE BEFORE SOMETHING MORE IS DONE - something more would be done)

First, you have your facts completely mixed up and inaccurate. The 3rd ID was the first division to reach the site. And their task was not to secure the site with respect to maintaining integrity of the area but rather to defeat the Iraqi army forces that were in the area:

quote:

The first U.S. military unit to reach the site in Iraq (news - web sites) where U.N. officials say 377 tons of high explosives are missing did not carry out a hunt for such material, the unit's commander said on Wednesday. Col. Dave Perkins, then the commander of the 2nd Brigade of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, said the immediate concern when his troops reached the Al Qaqaa site on April 3, 2003, was to defeat a couple of hundred Iraqi troops who were firing from the compound as the Americans surged toward Baghdad. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ves_pentagon_dc

Second the 101st didn't arrive until later and even then, there mission was NOT to secure the site. The commander of the division said as much himself:

quote:

Colonel Anderson, who is now the chief of staff for the division and who spoke by telephone from Fort Campbell, Ky., said his troops had been driving north toward Baghdad and had paused at Al Qaqaa to make plans for their next push. "We happened to stumble on it,'' he said. "I didn't know what the place was supposed to be. We did not get involved in any of the bunkers. It was not our mission. It was not our focus. We were just stopping there on our way to Baghdad. The plan was to leave that very same day. The plan was not to go in there and start searching. It looked like all the other ammunition supply points we had seen already." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/p...print&position=

Therefore between the arrival of the 3rd ID on April 3rd and at least until the arrival of the 101st on April 18th nobody was securing these bunkers. However, since nobody was ever tasked with securing the explosives, and in fact, eyewitness accounts witnessed looting soon after the 101st broke the seals, who knows when the effort to secure these explosives were actually undertaken. So negligence? Yea I wouldn't tolerate such stupidity in any organization that I were to run.

quote:

Its not a fact that the troops "allowed Iraqis to freely enter to take what they will", its your opinion.

No it's not a matter of opinion. If you had bothered to read the thread and all postings in their entirety you would have stumbled across one of the sources I directly referenced:

quote:

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". Officers with the 101st Airborne told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that the bunkers were within the U.S. military perimeter and protected. But Caffrey and former 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Reporter Dean Staley, who spent three months together in Iraq, said Iraqis were coming and going freely. "At one point there was a group of Iraqis driving around in a pick-up truck,"Staley said. "Three or four guys we kept an eye on, worried they might come near us." http://www.kstptv5.com/article/stor...23.html?cat=64&

It seems quite evident from first hand accounts that there was no security around this site. Furthermore deductive logic suggests that since explosives that were there when they were videotaped are no longer there today, one can conclude that they were stolen due to the fact that they were not guarded well enough.

quote:

There is no evidence that all explosives left at the site. My question if the video does show one seal as you mention, why is it only one seal? Wouldn't they store the same types of ammo, or at least a couple crates (we are talking 350 tons after all) together? How come the video didn't catch more than one seal if it did catch it (again I couldn't see any seal...)

The evidence that explosives were left at the site not only encompasses the fact that they were confirmed to be in place a week and a half before the invasion by the IAEA, but they are further corroborated by quite a number of other factors. The pentagon has been unable to provide any photographic evidence whatsoever that these weapons were moved, this despite the fact that the Pentagon was heavily monitoring the site with satellites and UAVs which was evidenced by their satellite photo of 2 trucks engaged in activity in Al Qaqaa which was supposed to provide some evidence of a "russian" connection. They essentially shot themselves in the foot with that one. The evidence proving that the weapons were in place in Al Qaqaa are further bolstered by the video evidence of such weapons in place.

As for the video evidence of only one seal, they only visited one of the bunkers. It's not like they had the forknowledge that this would be a serious issue and therefore they should have cataloguted everything completely. What you require that they visit every bunker and provide video evidence of all 350 tons of explosives before you believe them??? Sorry but that's simply illogical and irrational.

quote:

Look, leadership also goes from the ground up. If US soldiers - the same one that are complaining now that nothing is being done about gaurding the ammo dumps would have complained back than that the ammo dumps pose a major secruity threat, something would have been done. US military leadership is dynamic. It is not a top-down approach. It is a symbosis for the top - the overall strategy and the bottom - the commander in the field. The commander in the field has A LOT of power in his theater.

What??? Leadership goes from the ground up??? In the MILITARY??? Look based upon these two points it's clearly evident that you lack a proper understanding of leadership and the command and control structure of the military. The military is one of the most hierarchical structures in ANY case public or private. Where you come to the conclusion that leadership in the military in any way deviates from the chain of command escapes me. For christ's sake, there's a weekly history channel show solely based on tactical blunders committed as a result of ineptitutde on the part of commanders who fail to listen to the troops.

But hey, if you want to argue that commanders in the field have a LOT of power in their theater, why don't you dispute the fact that they originally asked for 350,000 troops and got only 100,000 troops?

quote:

Right, and this is of course Rumsfeld and Bushs fault obviously

Well if they only assign someone to address the issue of post war planning mere months before the invasion and only provide half staff to do the job, than YES it is their fault .

Christ, this behaviour would NEVER be acceptable in the business world. Why don't you read some of the controls that Sarbanes-Oxley places upon companies and specifically CEOs. Even IF they have no direct involvement in wrongdoing, they have a fiduciary responsiblity to act competently in avoiding any possiblity of wrongdoing on such a monumental level.

quote:

Yes, the Palestinians do it all the time. And I've seen Afghans boast about it too.

Well I'm glad you brought this up again. I was so moved by your insistence that you need confirmation from terrorists themeselves about the incompetance in securing supply depots that I searched out such information:

quote:

4 Iraqis Tell of Looting at Munitions Site in '03 By JAMES GLANZ and JIM DWYER Published: October 28, 2004 AGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 27 - Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday. The Iraqis described an orgy of theft so extensive that enterprising residents rented their trucks to looters. But some looting was clearly indiscriminate, with people grabbing anything they could find and later heaving unwanted items off the trucks. Two witnesses were employees of Al Qaqaa - one a chemical engineer and the other a mechanic - and the third was a former employee, a chemist, who had come back to retrieve his records, determined to keep them out of American hands. The mechanic, Ahmed Saleh Mezher, said employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers' responsibility. The accounts do not directly address the question of when 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives vanished from the site sometime after early March, the last time international inspectors checked the seals on the bunkers where the material was stored. It is possible that Iraqi forces removed some explosives before the invasion. But the accounts make clear that what set off much if not all of the looting was the arrival and swift departure of American troops, who did not secure the site after inducing the Iraqi forces to abandon it. "The looting started after the collapse of the regime," said Wathiq al-Dulaimi, a regional security chief, who was based nearby in Latifiya. But once it had begun, he said, the booty streamed toward Baghdad. Earlier this month, on Oct. 10, the directorate of national monitoring at the Ministry of Science and Technology notified the International Atomic Energy Agency that the explosives, which are used in demolition and missiles and are the raw material for plastic explosives, were missing. The agency has monitored the explosives because they can also be used as the initiator of an atomic bomb. Agency officials examined the explosives in January 2003 and noted in early March that their seals were still in place. On April 3, the Third Infantry Division arrived with the first American troops. Chris Anderson, a photographer for U.S. News and World Report who was with the division's Second Brigade, recalled that the area was jammed with American armor on April 3 and 4, which he believed made the removal of the explosives unlikely. "It would be quite improbable for this amount of weapons to be looted at that time because of the traffic jam of armor," he said. The brigade blew up numerous caches of arms throughout the area, he said. Mr. Anderson said he did not enter the munitions compound. The Second Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division arrived outside the site on April 10, under the command of Col. Joseph Anderson. The brigade had been ordered to move quickly to Baghdad because of civil disorder there after Mr. Hussein's government fell on April 9. They gathered at Al Qaqaa, about 30 miles south, simply as a matter of convenience, Colonel Anderson said in an interview this week. He said that when he arrived at the site - unaware of its significance - he saw no signs of looting, but was not paying close attention. Because he thought the brigade would be moving on to Baghdad within hours, Al Qaqaa was of no importance to his mission, he said, and he was unaware of the explosives that international inspectors said were hidden inside. Pentagon officials said Wednesday that analysts were examining surveillance photographs of the munitions site. But they expressed doubts that the photographs, which showed vehicles at the location on several occasions early in the conflict, before American troops moved through the area, would be able to indicate conclusively when the explosives were removed. Col. David Perkins, who commanded the Second Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, called it "very highly improbable" that 380 tons of explosives could have been trucked out of Al Qaqaa in the weeks after American troops arrived. Moving that much material, said Colonel Perkins, who spoke Wednesday to news agencies and cable television, "would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks." He conceded that some looting of the site had taken place. But a chemical engineer who worked at Al Qaqaa and identified himself only as Khalid said that once troops left the base itself, people streamed in to steal computers and anything else of value from the offices. They also took munitions like artillery shells, he said. Mr. Mezher, the mechanic, said it took the looters about two weeks to disassemble heavy machinery at the site and carry that off after the smaller items were gone. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/i...html?oref=login

Since your argument was hinged upon the fact that the account from troops on the ground was uncorroborated from the terrorists from the field, I can only logically conclude that your conditions are satiated and that incompetance in securing weapons depots is now an indisputable fact. Unless of course, you wish to add inumerable subsequent conditionals, of which I would not be surprised.

quote:

Ever heard of six sigma? 1% error is still 1% error.

Hahahahaha I really laughed at this one. Yes I've "heard" of six sigma ... it was actually one of my job functions a year ago. Six sigma is such crap that I don't know of one major institution that regards it as a major factor of risk. LOL as a matter of fact, I don't even know of any "black belts". There are typically far more importaant risk issues than ones that "define" perfection as dictated by six sigma. Anyway relating back to the topic of Iraq, this hardly seems like a six sigma issue ... at least not one that is issued to the media. That would be akin to something like the amount of food going into Iraq.

quote:

As in C&C there is always a limit to how many forces you can have. No matter what, it will never be enough, it will never be perfect.

The commanders weren't asking for an unreasonable amount. They were asking for an amount that htey felt were necessary to accomplish the task at hand. If you are unwilling to make the sacrifice required why embark upon the task? It's logically retarded.

quote:

Why? If I was the current leadership I'd send more troops just to keep you guys shut up about the issue. Current leadership is a damn if you do, damn if you don't on this issue. People will complain that too many troops are there if they send more, and people will complain that there aren't enough troops if they don't. So I believe they'll do whats damn better.

Sigh ... because there ARE no troops to send!!! Haven't you been keeping abreast of the news? Tour of duties have been extended:

http://www.michigan.gov/dmva/0,1607...75165--,00.html

Stop Loss policies have been put in place:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...my-troops_x.htm

And the indivdual ready reserve is starting to be called up:

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/new...ed-690510.shtml

With current and former troops being rotated out after their tours of duties have been completed, who do you think is going to take their place?

quote:

I fail to see how deciding on a large strategic decision such as the number of forces to on campaign exactly qualifies as "micomanagement". Perhaps you could enlighten me?

I would be glad to enlighten you. It's micromanagement since a civilian is attempting to dictate to a military expert what he/she needs to do to complete their job given the task at hand. Rumsfeld was countermanded not by generals alone, but by the CIA, the army war college, and nearly EVERY other intelligence department.

quote:

Again, link to KnightRidder? Personally I've always heard the opposition. The party line is the party line true, but you don't hear how it is formulated and why. You do hear the critism of these forumaltions though. Hence my point..

If there were a proper response to such "inaccurate" formulations, than I don't see why there would not be a response.

quote:

Anyway, I'm sort of getting bored of this debate. Maybe they'll release some new news over the weekend to get me heated up. I'll be off for halloween - so don't think you've won if I don't reply

I normally consider a non-response as an affirmation of a "win" but I've been guilty of not responding because I've been too lazy as well. One such example was the muslim peacekeeping troops thread that I was too lazy to respond to. Therefore I wouldn't think less of you for not responding. However, I still would consider a non-response as a "win" as I'm sure you considered the muslim peacekeeper thread as a "win" ;. This is not one of those threads that I would be lazy about however. At least not this close to the election.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka First of all, it would be "affiliate of..." Second of all, it is? If I'm not mistaken, ABC is owned by Disney, while Fox is owned by...Fox. Am I missing something or are you just throwing mud around aimlessly?

Not really.. if you call to talk to the directors to either FOX and ABC, is the same number.. same people working on that.. perhaps they are affiliates then...

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Not really.. if you call to talk to the directors to either FOX and ABC, is the same number.. same people working on that.. perhaps they are affiliates then...

1-800-555-7683
............. (ROVE)

yeah, it's a common phone number. they do have different extentions though.

ext. 4235 allows you to order "bush is my hommie" t-shirts.

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag ext. 4235 allows you to order "bush is my hommie" t-shirts.

What a bunch of bullshit! They were out of my size

could be an interesting news day.

http://www.nysun.com/article/4036

quote:

On Friday, Secretary of State Powell phoned the director general of the U.N. atomic-energy agency, Mohammed El-Baradei, to discuss the investigation into the facility near Baghdad, Al Qaqaa, from which at least 377 tons of plastic explosives, formerly under seal, disappeared. "They discussed the upcoming meeting in New York and the need to work together to find out the facts. It was noted that this was a story a lot of people were paying attention to. It was noted that this had become a public issue," a State Department official who had received a read-out of the call told The New York Sun. Another American official familiar with the discussion told the Sun that Mr. Powell warned Mr. ElBaradei to "steer clear" of the American elections when he presents his agency's annual report to the General Assembly in New York today. That official was careful to stipulate that Mr. Powell did not accuse the Egyptian-born diplomat of leaking the story. Mr. ElBaradei himself said publicly last week that he was not the source of the original leak, which led to stories by the New York Times and CBS News. "I think it is very likely that ElBaradei will not be able to resist making comments about U.S. responsibility for the missing explosives the day before the election," an official of the Bush administration told the Sun yesterday. Mr. ElBaradei and the Bush administration have feuded since the run-up to the Iraq war in March 2003, when the agency suggested that evidence the administration publicized about an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium yellowcake from Niger was forged. The Boston Globe reported Saturday that in April 2003, the Pentagon refused a request from the U.N. agency to send a team of experts to secure nuclear facilities in Iraq, including Al Qaqaa. The agency was brought in eventually, however, to monitor the Al Tuwaytha facility, a site where, in the aftermath of the war, bins of radioactive material were looted.

quote:

Mr. ElBaradei's agency also made public portions of an October 1 letter sent to it from Iraqi authorities. In it, they said the looting was due to a lack of security after the April 9, 2003, liberation of their country. A quotation to that effect was included in Mr. ElBaradei's letter last Monday to the president of the Security Council.

quote:

On Friday Human Rights Watch sent out a press release claiming that senior researchers in the field had warned the Pentagon of other insecure military facilities. The executive director of the organization said Friday," "Immediately after the fall of Baghdad, our researchers were finding massive stockpiles of weapons and explosives throughout Iraq. But when we informed coalition forces, they told us they just didn't have enough troops to secure these sites." Last Wednesday, a former Senate aide who helped unearth Iraqi documents on Mr. Hussein's gassing of Kurds, Peter Galbraith, published an op-ed that blasted the Bush administration for allowing the looting. He said that on April 16, 2003, a mob looted Iraq's equivalent of the country's Centers for Disease Control, taking stocks of live HIV and the virus associated with black fever. "U.S. troops were stationed across the street but did not intervene because they didn't know the building was important," he wrote.

tomorrow's headlines may have some damning quotes regarding neglegence in iraq. unless the pentagon can cough up some more pics of russian trucks , this issue will be the final nail in the coffin for the bush re-election campaign.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Whats funny is that ABC is some type of affiliate to FOX...

i agree

Ok Occrider.

It basically comes down to this:

You believe that since a seal (and still I'm not doubting the integrity of the report, but I still want to see with my own eyes what an IAEA seal looks like... ) was seen on TV afer the 3rd ID blew ammo at the depot that all 350 tons of WMD were stolen.

Where as I believe that a large portion of the 350 tons was most likely taken by the Iraqis beforehand. The remaining lot was not necessarily stolen , perhaps exploded, perhaps misplaced, perhaps miscategorized. But I mantain it could have been stolen - however not 350 tons of it.

I retain the US military did an adaquet job (considering circumstance) of securing the area.

But regardless what it boils down to is that you believe you are right: there is undeinable proof that the 350 tons was stolen.

While all I am saying is we can't know. There is not enough evidence to make any real judgement at this time. All we can really do is speculate.

I am also saying since there isn't really enough evidence to make a real jdugement at this time as to the fate of the 350 tons those that are making judgemtns are doing so for political reasons, not practical ones.

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag http://www.nysun.com/article/4036 On Friday Human Rights Watch sent out a press release claiming that senior researchers in the field had warned the Pentagon of other insecure military facilities. The executive director of the organization said Friday," "Immediately after the fall of Baghdad, our researchers were finding massive stockpiles of weapons and explosives throughout Iraq. But when we informed coalition forces, they told us they just didn't have enough troops to secure these sites." Last Wednesday, a former Senate aide who helped unearth Iraqi documents on Mr. Hussein's gassing of Kurds, Peter Galbraith, published an op-ed that blasted the Bush administration for allowing the looting. He said that on April 16, 2003, a mob looted Iraq's equivalent of the country's Centers for Disease Control, taking stocks of live HIV and the virus associated with black fever. "U.S. troops were stationed across the street but did not intervene because they didn't know the building was important," he wrote.

Now, that is scary!

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I still want to see with my own eyes what an IAEA seal looks like... )

Like this apparently:



And apparently this is it captured on video:





It'd take a better trained eye than mine say that that was an IAEA seal, but from the article the pics came from:

quote:

A spokesperson for the International Atomic Energy Agency told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that seal appears to be one used by their inspectors. "In Iraq they were used when there was a concern that this could have a, what we call, dual use purpose, that there could be a nuclear weapons application."

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=1

Also, from the David Kay interview:

quote:

Aaron Brown: 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? David Kay: 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.

I know that the picture there is pretty hard to make out (especially for us laymen) but do you have any legitimate reason to doubt their near certainty that this was an IAEA seal?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus While all I am saying is we can't know. There is not enough evidence to make any real judgement at this time. All we can really do is speculate. I am also saying since there isn't really enough evidence to make a real jdugement at this time as to the fate of the 350 tons those that are making judgemtns are doing so for political reasons, not practical ones.

What "evidence" would it take for you to accept that much (if not all) of the material was still there when the bunker was filmed on April 18th?

(Not a loaded question btw.)

Ok back to regularly scheduled arguments post elections.

Yoepus do you want me to respond to your arguments beyond what Renegade has put forth?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ok back to regularly scheduled arguments post elections. Yoepus do you want me to respond to your arguments beyond what Renegade has put forth?

nah I'm having to much fun gloating over the election victory.


I was thinking earlier that the only good part that would come if Kerry won is that we wouldn't have to continue this pointless argument....





still I'm not desputing the seal (though such a seal still doens't make a lot of sense to me..). Yet finding one seal in a video is a good leap away from saying 350 tons were stolen - and not only that the 350 tons were stolen but that they ended up in terrorist hands.



p.s.

damm you for digging up this thread... thanks to all the election news its was a few pages back, but no you had to go bring it back up to the frontpage just when it was out of site, out of mind... seesh.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus nah I'm having to much fun gloating over the election victory. I was thinking earlier that the only good part that would come if Kerry won is that we wouldn't have to continue this pointless argument.... still I'm not desputing the seal (though such a seal still doens't make a lot of sense to me..). Yet finding one seal in a video is a good leap away from saying 350 tons were stolen - and not only that the 350 tons were stolen but that they ended up in terrorist hands. p.s. damm you for digging up this thread... thanks to all the election news its was a few pages back, but no you had to go bring it back up to the frontpage just when it was out of site, out of mind... seesh.

Hehe the front page was getting too saturated with election news.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus nah I'm having to much fun gloating over the election victory. I was thinking earlier that the only good part that would come if Kerry won is that we wouldn't have to continue this pointless argument.... still I'm not desputing the seal (though such a seal still doens't make a lot of sense to me..). Yet finding one seal in a video is a good leap away from saying 350 tons were stolen - and not only that the 350 tons were stolen but that they ended up in terrorist hands. p.s. damm you for digging up this thread... thanks to all the election news its was a few pages back, but no you had to go bring it back up to the frontpage just when it was out of site, out of mind... seesh.

Hi Yoepus. From today's LATimes:

quote:

Soldiers Describe Looting of Explosives Iraqis piled high-grade material from a key site into trucks in the weeks after Baghdad fell, four U.S. reservists and guardsmen say. By Mark Mazzetti Times Staff Writer November 4, 2004 WASHINGTON � In the weeks after the fall of Baghdad, Iraqi looters loaded powerful explosives into pickup trucks and drove the material away from the Al Qaqaa ammunition site, according to a group of U.S. Army reservists and National Guardsmen who said they witnessed the looting. The soldiers said about a dozen U.S. troops guarding the sprawling facility could not prevent the theft because they were outnumbered by looters. Soldiers with one unit � the 317th Support Center based in Wiesbaden, Germany � said they sent a message to commanders in Baghdad requesting help to secure the site but received no reply. The witnesses' accounts of the looting, the first provided by U.S. soldiers, support claims that the American military failed to safeguard the munitions. Last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency � the U.N. nuclear watchdog � and the interim Iraqi government reported that about 380 tons of high-grade explosives had been taken from the Al Qaqaa facility after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003. The explosives are powerful enough to detonate a nuclear weapon. During the last week, when revelations of the missing explosives became an issue in the presidential campaign, the Bush administration suggested that the munitions could have been carted off by Saddam Hussein's forces before the war began. Pentagon officials later said that U.S. troops systematically destroyed hundreds of tons of explosives at Al Qaqaa after Baghdad fell. Asked about the soldiers' accounts, Pentagon spokeswoman Rose-Ann Lynch said Wednesday, "We take the report of missing munitions very seriously. And we are looking into the facts and circumstances of this incident." The soldiers, who belong to two different units, described how Iraqis plundered explosives from unsecured bunkers before driving off in Toyota trucks. The U.S. troops said there was little they could do to prevent looting of the ammunition site, 30 miles south of Baghdad. "We were running from one side of the compound to the other side, trying to kick people out," said one senior noncommissioned officer who was at the site in late April 2003. "On our last day there, there were at least 100 vehicles waiting at the site for us to leave" so looters could come in and take munitions. "It was complete chaos. It was looting like L.A. during the Rodney King riots," another officer said. He and other soldiers who spoke to The Times asked not to be named, saying they feared retaliation from the Pentagon. A Minnesota television station last week broadcast a video of U.S. troops with the 101st Airborne Division using tools to cut through wire seals left by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, at Al Qaqaa, evidence that the high-grade explosives remained inside at least one bunker weeks after the war began. The video was taped April 18, 2003, while soldiers from the 101st Airborne searched Al Qaqaa for chemical and biological weapons. The IAEA had placed seals on nine of the bunkers at the complex, where inspectors had found high-grade explosives. Other bunkers contained more conventional munitions. After opening bunkers, including one containing the high-grade explosives, U.S. troops left the bunkers unsecured, the Minnesota station reported. According to the four soldiers � members of the 317th Support Center and the 258th Rear Area Operations Center, an Arizona-based Army National Guard unit � the looting of Al Qaqaa occurred over several weeks in late April and early May. The two units were stationed near Al Qaqaa at a base known as Logistics Support Area (LSA) Dogwood. Soldiers with the units said they went to the ammunition facility soon after the departure of combat troops from the 101st Airborne Division. The soldiers interviewed by The Times could not confirm that powerful explosives known as HMX and RDX were among the munitions looted. One soldier said U.S. forces watched the looters' trucks loaded with bags marked "hexamine" � a key ingredient for HMX � being driven away from the facility. Unsure what hexamine was, the troops later did an Internet search and learned of its explosive power. "We found out this was stuff you don't smoke around," the soldier said. According to a list of "talking points" circulated by the Pentagon last week, when U.S. military weapons hunters visited Al Qaqaa on May 8, 2003, they found that the facility "had been looted and stripped and vandalized." No IAEA-monitored material was found, the "talking points" stated. A senior U.S. military intelligence official corroborated some aspects of the four soldiers' accounts. The official who tracked facilities believed to store chemical and biological weapons � none was ever found in Iraq � said that Al Qaqaa was "one of the top 200" suspect sites at the outset of the war. Despite the stockpiles at the site, no U.S. forces were specifically assigned to guard Al Qaqaa � known to U.S. forces in Iraq as Objective Elm � after the 101st Airborne left the facility. Members of the 258th Rear Area Operations Center, responsible for base security at nearby LSA Dogwood, came across the looting at Al Qaqaa during patrols through the area. The unit, which comprised 27 soldiers, enlisted the help of troops of the 317th Support in securing the site, the soldiers said. The senior intelligence official said there was no order for any unit to secure Al Qaqaa. "No way," the officer said, adding that doing so would have diverted combat resources from the push toward Baghdad. "It's all about combat power," the officer said, "and we were short combat power. "If we had 150,000 soldiers, I'm not sure we could have secured" such sites, the officer said. "Securing connotes 24-hour presence," and only a few sites in Baghdad were thought to warrant such security. Troops of the two units went to Al Qaqaa over a week in late April but received no orders to maintain a presence at the facility, the soldiers said. They also said they received no response to a request for help in guarding the facility. "We couldn't have been given the assignment to defend a facility unless we were given the troops to do it, and we weren't," said one National Guard officer. "[Objective] Elm being protected or not protected was not really part of the equation. It wasn't an area of immediate concern." Some confusion came in late April 2003 when U.S. commanders in Baghdad reassigned military responsibility for the area surrounding Al Qaqaa from Army units to the 1st Marine Division, which had participated in the assault on Baghdad and eventually took control over much of southern Iraq. According to Marine sources, when the 1st Marine Division took over, the combat unit didn't have enough troops to secure ammunition depots scattered across central and southern Iraq. The Al Qaqaa facility, they said, was of particular concern. "That site was just abandoned by the 101st Airborne, and there was never a physical handoff by the 101st to the Marines. They just left," said a senior officer who worked in the top Marine command post in Iraq at the time. "We knew these sites were being looted, but there was nothing we could do about it." During the same period, Marines came across another massive ammunition depot near the southern Iraqi town of Diwaniya, the senior officer said. They sent a message to the U.S. headquarters in Baghdad seeking guidance on how to keep the site from being plundered. Commanders in Baghdad responded that the Marines should attempt to blow up the depot. The Marine officers responded that the site was too large to demolish. Commanders in Baghdad "didn't have a good response to that," the officer said. "There was no plan to prevent these weapons from being used against us a year later." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...-home-headlines

Anytime you're willing to concede, lemme know.

The GOP won the election, but don't think we will allow you to define reality for us.

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