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.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

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?

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Oct-29-2004 at 18:05

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.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

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...

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

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!

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

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.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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?

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

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.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

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?