Main Restorations Software Audio/Jukebox/MP3 Everything Else Buy/Sell/Trade
Project Announcements Monitor/Video GroovyMAME Merit/JVL Touchscreen Meet Up Retail Vendors
Driving & Racing Woodworking Software Support Forums Consoles Project Arcade Reviews
Automated Projects Artwork Frontend Support Forums Pinball Forum Discussion Old Boards
Raspberry Pi & Dev Board controls.dat Linux Miscellaneous Arcade Wiki Discussion Old Archives
Lightguns Arcade1Up --- Bug Reports --- Site News

Unread posts | New Replies | Recent posts | Rules | Chatroom | Wiki | File Repository | RSS | Submit news

  

Author Topic: Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq  (Read 10076 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« on: October 25, 2004, 05:42:52 pm »
Too bad we didn't have anyone guarding it.  :-\

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

"At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity."

"White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the administration

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2004, 01:43:50 am »
ya know, it's funny....this story was reported on over a year ago.  I wonder why the "unbiased media"  ::) is re-reporting this story now.

Also, I don't see what the big deal is.  These are just explosives, after all.  Nothing Iraq couldn't get by trading some Oil For Food....unless NOW this stuff is relevant.   ::)

Maybe France just came and picked up the stuff they hadn't received payment on yet.

Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

Mameotron

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2004, 01:44:24 am »
Here, Cooter, you forgot to blame this one on Bush, too.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6325688/


patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2004, 03:40:46 am »
ya know, it's funny....this story was reported on over a year ago.  I wonder why the "unbiased media"  ::) is re-reporting this story now.
They are not re-reporting he story. The date they mention is the date the UN took inventory before and between that date and now the stuff is gone. So they would report on the end of the period which is ... now.
Quote
Also, I don't see what the big deal is.  These are just explosives, after all.  Nothing Iraq couldn't get by trading some Oil For Food....unless NOW this stuff is relevant.   ::)
Oh so now it isn't a problem? You were the one going bananas over the conventional arms bought by Iraq. But indeed I'd say this is much worse. The US is supposed to be there to put and end to terrorism. How do you figure people stealing high explosives is gonna help in that area? Now we don't have a government owning the stuff (a government that could/would not threaten the US BTW), but we have terrorists roaming the place with these high explosives. You don't see how that is worse than Saddam buying a few anti aircraft missiles?
Quote
Maybe France just came and picked up the stuff they hadn't received payment on yet.
Who knows. They did sell them plenty of stuff before the sanctions, but they would have told the UN about it.
This signature is intentionally left blank

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2004, 03:28:00 pm »
Patrickl,

What's your source for that?

Here's the report I got for it:
Quote
60 MINS PLANNED BUSH MISSING EXPLOSIVES STORY FOR ELECTION EVE

News of missing explosives in Iraq -- first reported in April 2003 -- was being resurrected for a 60 MINUTES election eve broadcast designed to knock the Bush administration into a crisis mode.

Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of 60 MINUTES, said in a statement that "our plan was to run the story on October 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold..."

Elizabeth Jensen at the LOS ANGELES TIMES details on Tuesday how CBS NEWS and 60 MINUTES lost the story [which repackaged previously reported information on a large cache of explosives missing in Iraq, first published and broadcast in 2003].

The story instead debuted in the NYT. The paper slugged the story about missing explosives from April 2003 as "exclusive."

An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.

According to NBCNEWS, the explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived. [VIDEO CLIP]

It is not clear who exactly shopped an election eve repackaging of the missing explosives story.

The LA TIMES claims: The source on the story first went to 60 MINUTES but also expressed interest in working with the NY TIMES... "The tip was received last Wednesday."

CBSNEWS' plan to unleash the story just 24 hours before election day had one senior Bush official outraged.

"Darn, I wanted to see the forged documents to show how this was somehow covered up," the Bush source, who asked not to be named, mocked, recalling last months CBS airing of fraudulent Bush national guard letters.
King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2004, 03:50:47 pm »
I'm talking about the report Crazy Cooter pointed too of course.

Actually there were several weapons caches incidents (there were a few blowing up just "after" the invasion)
« Last Edit: October 26, 2004, 03:55:15 pm by patrickl »
This signature is intentionally left blank

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2004, 04:03:58 pm »
Here, Cooter, you forgot to blame this one on Bush, too.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6325688/



380 tons of explosives could probably cause an earthquake.  I can't help it that Bush is a fish in a barrel.  These are decisions that he and the people he put in charge are making.  We bit off more than we can chew and it's becoming more and more obvious.

Dartful Dodger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3488
  • Last login:July 23, 2012, 11:21:39 pm
  • Newer isn't always better.
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2004, 05:40:28 pm »
380 tons of explosives could probably cause an earthquake.  I can't help it that Bush is a fish in a barrel.  These are decisions that he and the people he put in charge are making.  We bit off more than we can chew and it's becoming more and more obvious.
you think that's obvious, but you can't see that Kerry would make things worse.

Gore lost, get over it.

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2004, 05:50:11 pm »
380 tons of explosives could probably cause an earthquake.  I can't help it that Bush is a fish in a barrel.  These are decisions that he and the people he put in charge are making.  We bit off more than we can chew and it's becoming more and more obvious.
you think that's obvious, but you can't see that Kerry would make things worse.
A proper (pre-war) planning of what to do after the invasion would have prevented this problem (and many many others) The gung-ho approach Bush and Rumsfeld took to execute this war hindered this planning (or maybe they just weren't able to foresee the need to plan this since "the Iraqi's would be freed and everything would be peachy") It makes sense Kerry would have taken the time to do some thinking (and then of course there is the simple fact that he is capable of thinking, which would also be an important factor)
This signature is intentionally left blank

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2004, 06:23:54 pm »
They are not re-reporting he story. The date they mention is the date the UN took inventory before and between that date and now the stuff is gone. So they would report on the end of the period which is ... now.
fredster said it pretty well.  Was your defense the "several caches" comment?  

Quote
Oh so now it isn't a problem? You were the one going bananas over the conventional arms bought by Iraq. But indeed I'd say this is much worse. The US is supposed to be there to put and end to terrorism. How do you figure people stealing high explosives is gonna help in that area? Now we don't have a government owning the stuff (a government that could/would not threaten the US BTW), but we have terrorists roaming the place with these high explosives. You don't see how that is worse than Saddam buying a few anti aircraft missiles?
perhaps you missed the ::)

The items missing are powders used in setting up the explosive action of warheads.  You may have heard of them by their common name, WMD's.  Since Iraq CLEARLY ::) doesn't possess WMD's, the theft of these powders amounts to a non-issue now.  

In fact, the area in question was supposed to be under U.N. guard when the items in question either were or were not there.  

This story is the equivalent of the DUI story that "broke" (is it really considered breaking a story if it's known about months prior to the story airing?) on the eve of the last election here that was unable to snipe the election for Gore

Quote
Who knows. They did sell them plenty of stuff before the sanctions, but they would have told the UN about it.
There were things going on there that you previously stated they were doing "to protect investments in the area".  There were also weapons being sold to Iraq, violating the sanctions.  Now you are telling ME that "they would have told the UN about it".  I must be a kettle, because you just called me black.


Cooter, the explosive power of the items in question could indeed cause trembling of the ground.  To use the phrase "could cause an earthquake" is a bit of hyperbole.  If we could cause earthquakes, we wouldn't need weapons during war, we'd just start an earthquake and send our guys in when we set it off ;)

They could cause explosions  IF  used with a warhead.  Since they have no WMD's, this is a "mute" point ;)  

Or is it a moo point?  As in....even a cow doesn't see the point in this re-release of information over a year old...although even a cow could see that this is, indeed, a re-release of information
« Last Edit: October 26, 2004, 06:52:58 pm by DrewKaree »
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2004, 06:37:34 pm »
Troops from 3 ID were there on 5 April and saw the explosives in question.

5 days later, on 10 April, troops from the 101 AB were there and the explosives were gone.

What happened in those 5 days?
Why is it news, 18 months later?

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2004, 06:53:38 pm »
Drew,

I'm not gonna post a reply on all your misunderstandings in the other thread  over here in this thread. If you really want an explanation, just read the messages again. If you see a contradiction you are simply misunderstanding either of the posts.

I'll just explain that "France" did not violate the sanctions. If french weapons were sold to Iraq they could have come from anywhere. The Duelfer report mentions arms dealers getting them from Syria and Jordan. In fact the Duelfer report also mentions US companies violating the sanctions (but hides the names!). Does that mean "the US" defied the sanctions? No indeed not. Just that some criminals in the US did.

My "defense" on this thread is that the article Crazy Cooter pointed too claimed the explosives were there in september 2003 and that there was an inspection again on october 15th (doesn't mention a year, but I assumed they meant 2004) So this is in fact a newsreport on an investigation that just took place.

BTW Where do you find that the items were under UN guard? The UN was not in that war. The US military just sat still for a week while the country was looted. Why was that? Yep no planning.
This signature is intentionally left blank

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2004, 07:52:20 pm »
"Cooter, the explosive power of the items in question could indeed cause trembling of the ground.  To use the phrase "could cause an earthquake" is a bit of hyperbole."

Yeah, mameo wants me to blame Bush for earthquakes.  That's as much of a stretch I could make. ;)

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2004, 08:15:09 pm »
My "defense" on this thread is that the article Crazy Cooter pointed too claimed the explosives were there in september 2003 and that there was an inspection again on october 15th (doesn't mention a year, but I assumed they meant 2004) So this is in fact a newsreport on an investigation that just took place.

But this isnt the case.

The last IAEA inspection was Jan 2003.
9 April 2003, 101 AB did not see them
23 May 2003, the ISG said they were not there.

So, of the million or so tons of stored munitions in Iraq, almost 1/3 of which have been destroyed since 19 MAR 2003, ~380 tons went missing asometime between Jan and 9 April 2003.

Please note that these ~380 tons of explosive lift capability equates to ~40 10-ton trucks.  The explosives were -not- looted.


If this is the "October Surprise" from the left, get ready for 4 more years of Bush.


Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2004, 08:50:19 pm »

 The explosives were -not- looted.

"But since the disappearance was reported Monday by The New York Times, he said, he wanted the Security Council to have the letter that he received from Mohammed J. Abbas, a senior official at Iraq

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2004, 10:26:37 pm »
You do not "loot" 380 tons of explosives.

You move them with trucks.  Lots of them.  ~40 10-ton trucks, to be more precise.

You do not move them with trucks -after- your ability to move them with trucks has been taken from you.  Please note that in April/May 2003, there was no insurgency; there was no organized 'resistance'.

These weapons were -not- there in the immediate post-war period.  They were moved -before- we arrived in Baghdad, because thats the only way they -could- have been moved.




DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #16 on: October 27, 2004, 01:10:13 am »
I'll just explain that "France" did not violate the sanctions. If french weapons were sold to Iraq they could have come from anywhere.
woops, I forgot to change my rhetoric.  

Maybe France Syria or Russia just came and picked up the stuff they hadn't received payment on yet.

Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2004, 03:26:33 am »
I'll just explain that "France" did not violate the sanctions. If french weapons were sold to Iraq they could have come from anywhere.
woops, I forgot to change my rhetoric.  

Maybe France Syria or Russia just came and picked up the stuff they hadn't received payment on yet.


"Weapons dealer from france" != "France"

But I guess you understand you lost the debate so now we get this ...
This signature is intentionally left blank

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #18 on: October 27, 2004, 03:36:36 am »
My "defense" on this thread is that the article Crazy Cooter pointed too claimed the explosives were there in september 2003 and that there was an inspection again on october 15th (doesn't mention a year, but I assumed they meant 2004) So this is in fact a newsreport on an investigation that just took place.

But this isnt the case.

blablabla

If this is the "October Surprise" from the left, get ready for 4 more years of Bush.
"President Bush ordered an investigation of the disappearance shortly after being notified by the IAEA on Oct. 15". This is a report about this "investigation" (of course with some background info)
This signature is intentionally left blank

Dexter

  • Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel. -- Irish, darnit!
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
  • Last login:May 22, 2015, 11:52:02 am
  • "MAKE POVERTY HISTORY......."
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #19 on: October 27, 2004, 10:58:21 am »
Since Iraq CLEARLY  doesn't possess WMD's, the theft of these powders amounts to a non-issue now.  

Unless you're a GI killed by these powders of course, in which case it's the ONLY issue   ;) Unfortunately, these caches were not part of the Ministry of Oil, in which case they would have been given round the clock protection from day one.

Please note that in April/May 2003, there was no insurgency; there was no organized 'resistance'.

Or WMDs, or 45 minute strike capability, or Al Quaida connections to Saddam. There WAS some guy on an aircraft carrier with a 'mission accomplished' sign behind him though. President Gore must have nearly peed himself laughing at the arrogance and short-sightedness of it all!

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #20 on: October 27, 2004, 11:03:31 am »
Please note that in April/May 2003, there was no insurgency; there was no organized 'resistance'.

Or WMDs, or 45 minute strike capability, or Al Quaida connections to Saddam.

And this defeats my point, because...?



President Gore...

Who?

Dexter

  • Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel. -- Irish, darnit!
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
  • Last login:May 22, 2015, 11:52:02 am
  • "MAKE POVERTY HISTORY......."
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2004, 11:36:40 am »

And this defeats my point, because...?

I wasn't questioning your point, just reminding folk that there was a lot of things not in Iraq at that time!


Who?

Gore, the President in exile, nice fella, won the 2000 election, remember??

DYNAGOD

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1164
  • Last login:May 21, 2012, 07:01:55 am
  • sprites taste better than polygons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #22 on: October 27, 2004, 11:40:04 am »
well with 350 tons of high grade military explosive  on the black market id think its safe to say theres never been a better time to clear those stumps outta that field..
 ;D
Enjoying the fruits of technological obsolescence one game at a time...

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #23 on: October 27, 2004, 12:06:08 pm »


I wasn't questioning your point, just reminding folk that there was a lot of things not in Iraq at that time!

And while people like you think 40 truckloads of explosives can dissapear out from underneath US troops, none of the things that are also "missing" could have possibly been moved somewhere else.



Gore, the President in exile, nice fella, won the 2000 election, remember??

Last i looked, the election went 271-266 for Bush.
You have other information?

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #24 on: October 27, 2004, 12:21:49 pm »
This issue has been in the press before.  I think this trick will backfire on the dems who are making this some "new" infomation.

It has no teeth or impact, and the story will unfold in Bush's favor.

It is obviously political.
King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #25 on: October 27, 2004, 12:31:16 pm »
Bush's response hits it out of the park:

"After repeatedly calling Iraq the wrong war, and a diversion, Senator Kerry this week seemed shocked to learn that Iraq is a dangerous place, full of dangerous weapons..."

"If Senator Kerry had his way... Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would control those all of those weapons and explosives and could share them with his terrorist friends. Now the senator is making wild charges about missing explosives, when his top foreign policy adviser admits, quote, 'We do not know the facts.' Think about that: The senator is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts..."

"Our military is now investigating a number of possible scenarios, including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site. This investigation is important and it's ongoing. And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief."

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #26 on: October 27, 2004, 02:11:35 pm »
Talk about grasping at Straws.  Kerry picking this up shows what an idiot he is.

The Pentagon says that these weapons were missing before they got there.  The UN is showing the error on thier end.

It also proves the point that weapons were moved around before the war. There's more evidence that WMD was moved out of Iraq.

But the good news is that this is the Best Kerry and his group can come up with for an October Surprise.

I like it. I think it's funny.

King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #27 on: October 27, 2004, 02:20:08 pm »
Bush's response hits it out of the park:

"After repeatedly calling Iraq the wrong war, and a diversion, Senator Kerry this week seemed shocked to learn that Iraq is a dangerous place, full of dangerous weapons..."
and said "dangerous weapons" are now in the hands of terrorists with the compliments of George W B. opposed to in safe storage.
Quote
"If Senator Kerry had his way... Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would control those all of those weapons and explosives and could share them with his terrorist friends. <snip>
Friends like Rumsfeld?
Quote
"Our military is now investigating a number of possible scenarios, including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site. This investigation is important and it's ongoing. And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief."
and because of this investigation it is now news again. If Bush would have had a clue about ehat he was doing there he might have started the investigation earlier. Maybe even before it was stolen in the first place.

I have to agree this makes the whole scenario of the stolen WMD much more likely. If they put no guards on military stockpiles like this who knows how they "guarded" other installations. Now that's a hoot. They search for the WMD and the people who know just move them out the back door. Wouldn't you just have hoped for someone to start an invasion to actually plan ahead on what to do after the invasion was done? Or does it make sense to say "Ah well our troops are not trained to police these people so well just wait around a bit". The more I think about how this retard screwed up, the more worried I get about how he is helping the terrorists.
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #28 on: October 27, 2004, 02:30:04 pm »
...and said "dangerous weapons" are now in the hands of terrorists with the compliments of George W B. opposed to in safe storage.

They were taken from storage before US forces arrive.
If you're going to blame anyone for the Iraqis having access to them, blame the IAEA for not blowing them up in 1995, as urged by Duelfur.



Friends like Rumsfeld

Wow.  You're really desperate.
FDR and Truman shook Stalin's hand.  Did that make them friends?



If Bush would have had a clue about ehat he was doing there he might have started the investigation earlier. Maybe even before it was stolen in the first place.

Given that it weas stolen before we arrived there - how do you suggest he have done that?



I have to agree this makes the whole scenario of the stolen WMD much more likely

So.... maybe there WERE WMDs in Iraq?
If so...doesnt that fully legitimatize the invasion?



Wouldn't you just have hoped for someone to start an invasion to actually plan ahead on what to do after the invasion was done?

Wait...
...you're blaming Bush for not having a plan to protect the weapons that are supposedly not there, and for not having enacted that plan BEFORE we physically reached the facilites?

Wow.  Thats... remarkable.


fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #29 on: October 27, 2004, 02:33:16 pm »
PatrickL,

You aren't a soldier. It's obvious that you never were. I was a soldier in the US army 1983-1992.

You plan as best you can, but you don't have a freaking crystal ball.  All this talk of a 'plan' that contained contingentcies for every occasion is rediculous.

Don Rumsfeld is not a terrorist.  He's part of the greatest force the world has every known.

The US knew about this report last year.  The Pentagon said these weapons were gone before they owned Baghdad.  The UN is pushing up a smoke screen because of the failures they made in Iraq.

The more I think about how retards look at the war on terror as a simple police action with set rules and regulations the more I realize I'm glad we have strong leadership in the US.

Drew won that debate listed above hands down dude.  Face it, you are shooting blanks.
King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #30 on: October 27, 2004, 02:39:21 pm »
...and said "dangerous weapons" are now in the hands of terrorists with the compliments of George W B. opposed to in safe storage.

They were taken from storage before US forces arrive.
Well they were stolen at least after 15th of march 2003 and the Iraqi's said they were there after the US came by (who just passed by this complex with 1000 buildings)

But then it's not really important when they were stolen. Much more important is the fact that Bush claims he was going to war to put a stop to terrorism. It now seems the terrorists are up by at least 350tons of high explosives due to his invasion.
This signature is intentionally left blank

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #31 on: October 27, 2004, 02:46:52 pm »
You plan as best you can, but you don't have a freaking crystal ball.  All this talk of a 'plan' that contained contingentcies for every occasion is rediculous.

Of course I understand you cannot plan ahead for every contingency, but wouldn't it make sense to at least be prepared for the "contingency" that you actually win the invasion? The US forces were not trained for this "contingency" at all (at least that's the excuse they gaave when hell broke loose). Our troops were trained for months on how to deal with the Iraqi's. The US forces should have had similar training, but Bush was in too much of a hurry. I'm not blamingh the military. They were trained to fight and that they did well. If they had some backup police forces or training how to do it themselves for after the war things would have gone a lot smoother. Just a few monthes could have made a huge difference and have cost a lot less deaths.
Quote
Don Rumsfeld is not a terrorist.
But then Saddam didn't have any terrorist friends either. Well the palestinians loved him, but that's about it.
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #32 on: October 27, 2004, 02:50:14 pm »
Well they were stolen at least after 15th of march 2003 and the Iraqi's said they were there after the US came by (who just passed by this complex with 1000 buildings)

The were -certainly- not there 8 May 2003 when the Iraqi Survey Group showed up.  

Of course, no one has explained to me how insurgets that dont yet exist move ~40 truckloads of explosives out of a facility under US/allied control.


But then it's not really important when they were stolen

Like hell its not.
If they were "stolen" BEFORE US troops showed up then there's no way anyone can blame the asministration for it.  The original NYT story leaves the reader with the impression that they were recently stolen; had they printed the WHOLE TRUTH then there would have been no story at all.


Much more important is the fact that Bush claims he was going to war to put a stop to terrorism.

Um... you people keep telling us Bush said the war in Iraq was all about WMDs.   make up your mind.


It now seems the terrorists are up by at least 350tons of high explosives due to his invasion.

The Iraqis --always-- had access to these weapons, and the ability to give them to the terrorists whenever they wanted to.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #33 on: October 27, 2004, 02:54:14 pm »
The US forces were not trained for this "contingency" at all (at least that's the excuse they gaave when hell broke loose).

Incorrect.
the troops in question were not tasked with securing the compound - their mission was to go to Baghdad.

This has nothing to do with training; it has everything to do with the mission at hand.



patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #34 on: October 27, 2004, 03:02:59 pm »
The were -certainly- not there 8 May 2003 when the Iraqi Survey Group showed up.  

Of course, no one has explained to me how insurgets that dont yet exist move ~40 truckloads of explosives out of a facility under US/allied control.
Isn't that just the point that they didn't have it under control?
Quote
Much more important is the fact that Bush claims he was going to war to put a stop to terrorism.

Um... you people keep telling us Bush said the war in Iraq was all about WMDs.   make up your mind.
You people? Can't he have 2 reasons. Or more even. "War on terror" and "keeping WMD from terrorists". I don;t really see the distinction though.
Quote
It now seems the terrorists are up by at least 350tons of high explosives due to his invasion.

The Iraqis --always-- had access to these weapons, and the ability to give them to the terrorists whenever they wanted to.
Yeah, but then there is no proof he wanted to do so (or ever did) so we have to assume he wasn't going to do that. But then who needs rational thinking when a nuke could go off any minute in NYC.
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #35 on: October 27, 2004, 03:14:31 pm »
Isn't that just the point that they didn't have it under control?

Thats the point you'd LIKE to make, but you cant.
You cant even show that the weapons were there when we arrived.
Youre premise is that a force of insurgents (that did not yet exist) used a force of at least 40 trucks that they did not have to pull 380 tonds of material out from under our noses -- while completely rejecting the FAR more plauseable and better supported idea that the explosives were taken BEFORE we got there.

Thats because to admit that they might have been taken before we arrived is to remove blame from Bush - and after all, thats the point isnt it?  





You people? Can't he have 2 reasons. Or more even. "War on terror" and "keeping WMD from terrorists". I don;t really see the distinction though.


Actually there were three reasons.
Are you admitting that his argument for going to war in Iraq because of WMD was valid?



Yeah, but then there is no proof he wanted to do so (or ever did) so we have to assume he wasn't going to do that.

LOL
You HAVE to assume that he was never going to break out the explosives and give them to terrorists when you;re claiming that he did exactly that!!
LOL

Thats -amazing-.

But hey - when you start out with "I hate Bush" and work your argument backweards from there, I guess you get things like this.

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #36 on: October 27, 2004, 03:18:07 pm »
It's a non issue.

It was a non issue when it happened.  It wasn't a surprise.  No one seems to have any 'proof' these weapons were there. No one seems to disprove they were taken to the desert and buried or to syria and stored.

All these "what if's" are useless.

Fortunately we don't have to find out what Saddam would have done or how many people he or his crazy sons would have killed in the future.

We took care of the problem.  

The Coalition will find the people that are causing the problems and correct it.  The new Iraqi government will also prevent this from happening.

King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #37 on: October 27, 2004, 03:53:19 pm »
Isn't that just the point that they didn't have it under control?

Thats the point you'd LIKE to make, but you cant.
You cant even show that the weapons were there when we arrived.
Youre premise is that a force of insurgents (that did not yet exist) used a force of at least 40 trucks that they did not have to pull 380 tonds of material out from under our noses -- while completely rejecting the FAR more plauseable and better supported idea that the explosives were taken BEFORE we got there.

Thats because to admit that they might have been taken before we arrived is to remove blame from Bush - and after all, thats the point isnt it?  
and you can't prove they weren't there after April 4th. So? I guess that's why Bush finally called for an investigation.

BTW where do you get that there were no insurgents? The US encountered plenty foreign soldiers during the invasion.

The point remains that these explosives are now most likely in the hands of terrorists when they weren't before the war.

Quote
You people? Can't he have 2 reasons. Or more even. "War on terror" and "keeping WMD from terrorists". I don;t really see the distinction though.


Actually there were three reasons.
Are you admitting that his argument for going to war in Iraq because of WMD was valid?
Did I say that? You asked me what Bush claimed were his reasons. Trying to drag me away from the topic again? You feel you lost the argument already?

Quote
Yeah, but then there is no proof he wanted to do so (or ever did) so we have to assume he wasn't going to do that.

LOL
You HAVE to assume that he was never going to break out the explosives and give them to terrorists when you;re claiming that he did exactly that!!
LOL
Huh? You have the weirdest reasoning. They stole/looted the explosives. That's not exactly the same as that Saddam would have given it to them.

Quote
But hey - when you start out with "I hate Bush" and work your argument backweards from there, I guess you get things like this.
I start out with the understanding that the US military was let down by an idiot (or rather two of them) at the helm yes. The military should at least have been aware that these facilities housed this stuff and checked if it was still there and if still there guard it.
This signature is intentionally left blank

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #38 on: October 27, 2004, 03:54:44 pm »
No one seems to have any 'proof' these weapons were there.
well there is proof they were there

Quote
We took care of the problem.  
and created a much bigger one
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #39 on: October 27, 2004, 04:07:14 pm »
and you can't prove they weren't there after April 4th. So? I guess that's why Bush finally called for an investigation.

Sure I can.  the ISG surveyed the facility in May 2003 and reported that the explosives were gone.   So, they were -certainly- missing my the time of the report, 27 May.



BTW where do you get that there were no insurgents?

In April/May 2003, we were fighting what was left of the Iraqi Army, and Ba'athists in Tikrit, et al.   The insurgency had not yet started.

Where do YOU get that the "insurgents" had a post-April 9 ability to lift 380 tons of material from a facility under US control?

Your entire argument is based on the idea that they could do this.



The point remains that these explosives are now most likely in the hands of terrorists when they weren't before the war.

The explosives were under Iraqi control, and were accessable to the Iraqis, to give to the terrorists or otherwise, at any time.



Did I say that? You asked me what Bush claimed were his reasons. Trying to drag me away from the topic again? You feel you lost the argument already

No, thats clearly where YOU are.



Huh? You have the weirdest reasoning. They stole/looted the explosives. That's not exactly the same as that Saddam would have given it to them.

Given that the explosixes disappeared between 15 March and 10 April....  who do you think took them?  Saddam.

 And if they were given to the terrorists - who do you think gave it to them?  Saddam.



I start out with the understanding that the US military was let down by an idiot (or rather two of them)...

Thanks for proving my point.

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #40 on: October 27, 2004, 05:15:50 pm »
Quote
No one seems to have any 'proof' these weapons were there.
 
 
well there is proof they were there

When? 1998? 2001?  Show me the money Patrickl.

Quote
We took care of the problem.  
 
 
and created a much bigger one

I guess that depends on if you can't see the problem that was there in the first place.  Apparently you liked and supported Saddam.  You don't believe he was a threat to you.  We did.

Sorry if you don't agree that he would have come after the US and the UN was corrupted.  Sorry if you can't see the real world.

King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #41 on: October 27, 2004, 05:27:47 pm »
The point of course is that there is no proof if they were there on April 4th since noone looked for them then. So the earliest point one can use is May 27th. Yet the Iraqi's themselves (who quote the May 27th date) claim it might also be September 4th.

The only real undisputed facts are that the IAEA verified the remainder (nearly 350 tons) was still there on march 15th 2003 and that they were gone in October 2004 when the IAEA informed Bush the high explosives were not there anymore.

You can call it insurgency or not, but terrorists started entering Iraq from the moment the war started.

If they used real trucks instead of pick-ups it could even take just one truck to move the stuff. The terrorists had ample time. Moving stuff around is not really rocket science. For all I know they moved it 2 miles, hid it there, and moved it further later. Who knows? Who cares actually? Does the fact that people don't know for sure how the egyptians build the pyramids proof they don't exist?

Point is, the explosives are most likely in the hands of terrorists now.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2004, 05:45:49 pm by patrickl »
This signature is intentionally left blank

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #42 on: October 27, 2004, 05:29:21 pm »
So we can argue about it or take the word of someone who was there:
"Reporter Lai Ling Jew, who was embedded with the Army

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #43 on: October 27, 2004, 06:01:13 pm »
Quote
No one seems to have any 'proof' these weapons were there.
 
 
well there is proof they were there

When? 1998? 2001?  Show me the money Patrickl.
Did you even read any of the links pointed out here?
Quote
Quote
We took care of the problem.  

 
 
and created a much bigger one

I guess that depends on if you can't see the problem that was there in the first place.  Apparently you liked and supported Saddam.  You don't believe he was a threat to you.  We did.

Sorry if you don't agree that he would have come after the US and the UN was corrupted.  Sorry if you can't see the real world.


I do think that Saddam was less of a threat (to the US or Europe) than thousands of new terrorists and them owning tons of high explosives yes. I have to admit that I'm talking real world threat rather than imagined threat if a certain doomsday scenario would come true yes. Besides "they" stole more than just high explosives. There were earlier incident where for instance highly enriched uranium was stolen.
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #44 on: October 27, 2004, 07:18:39 pm »
Now if we had done our homework, we would have known that the International Atomic Energy Agency had the materials at that facility under seal.  We should have made an effort to secure it.  

The soldiers in question were under movement orders to head to Baghdad for the "Final battle", which was just about to start.  this was, quite legitimately, their objective.

YOU are trying to second-guess the commanders on the field, with hindsight.  Thats am overtly stupid things for you to do , on several levels.

It comes down to what you believe to be more likely:
-The Iraqis moved ~40 truckloads of explosives out of the area between 15 March and 4 April before American troops arrived;
-The Iraqis moved ~40 truckloads of explosives out of the area between 5 April and 8 May with American troops all over the  place.

The only way this is Bush's "fault" is if its the latter - and if you believe its the latter, its only because you WANT it to be Bush's fault.


TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #45 on: October 27, 2004, 07:23:57 pm »
Did you even read any of the links pointed out here?

I did.  There's no proof whatsoever that the 380 tons of explosives in question were there on 4/5 April or 9/10 April.



I do think that Saddam was less of a threat (to the US or Europe) than thousands of new terrorists and them owning tons of high explosives yes.

Sounds like you should be oin the IAEA's case for not blowing them up, as suggested by Duelful in 1995.

And its amazing...  we're discovered over 1,000,000 tons of ordnance and siposed of over 300,000 tons of it -- and yet this 380 tons, taken before we arrived, is news.



There were earlier incident where for instance highly enriched uranium was stolen.

And yet we're told that Iraq was not a nuclear threat.

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #46 on: October 27, 2004, 07:27:51 pm »
Looking to see what the International Atomic Energy Agency knows (and has secured I might add)  shouldn't be hindsight.  That's my point.  It should have been done beforehand.  Then securing it would have been part of their mission.  Not securing it was where the "stupidity" came in.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #47 on: October 27, 2004, 07:43:39 pm »
 That's my point.  It should have been done beforehand.  Then securing it would have been part of their mission.  Not securing it was where the "stupidity" came in.

Thats --easy--

The troops weren't THERE to secure it.   They werent sent there, it wasnt in their mission, it wasnt part of the operation.  THEY were on the way to Baghdad to fight.

YOU are questioning the ground commanders' decision to send them to Baghdad rather than to secure a weapons site, and you're doing it because of hindsight -- based on flawed information.  YOU are not a infantry field commander, and YOU were not there.  YOU dont have a CLUE as to what was going on, what the plan was, who was to do what ot any nuimber of OTHER things that go into the decision process.

The MISSION of the 3ID and 101AB was to engage Iraqis, kill them, and take Baghdad.  AFTER they did that, THEN the mission of securing the several thousand munitions dumps all around Iraq can be undertaken.  The mission of defeating the Iraqi army and capturing the capital was judged to take precedence over securing this or any  particular site.  Thats a decision made by people WAY more knowledgeable and experienced than you.


And for that matter, YOU dont even know if the explosives were there when the 3ID got there - making your entire argument pretty meaningless.  


War is a funny thing.  After the war is fought, a lot of people that dont have a clue in general, musch less as to what was going on at the time (like you) step forward and say "we should have done this, that, the other thing).  

Next war, YOU get to sit in the lead Bradley, wearing silver oak leaves. YOU get to make the decisions.  We cant possibly lose.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2004, 09:35:39 pm by TA Pilot »

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #48 on: October 27, 2004, 07:53:33 pm »
Hey!   Here's what the commander on the scene had to say:
 
(CBS/AP) The first U.S. military units to reach the Al-Qaqaa military installation south of Baghdad after the invasion of Iraq did not have orders to search for some 350 tons of explosives that are now said to be missing from the site.

"We were still in a fight...our focus was killing bad guys" said the commander of the U.S. military unit that was first to arrive in the area, in an interview with CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin, confirming that they did not search the bunkers at the site for explosives, and did not secure the site against looters.


But I guess Cooter knows better than this guy.  
A regular McClellan, that Cooter.


And Duelfer - the darling of the left, cited every day by Jophn Kerry, whose report showed no Oraqi WMDs or WMD programs?

"It's hard for me to get that worked up about it," said Duelfer, in a phone interview from Baghdad, noting that Iraq is awash in hundreds of thousands of tons of explosives.

Duelfer also said U.N. weapons inspectors recommended in 1995 that the high explosives be destroyed because of their potential use in a nuclear weapons program.



It comes down to what you believe to be more likely:
-The Iraqis moved ~40 truckloads of explosives out of the area between 15 March and 4 April before American troops arrived;
-The Iraqis moved ~40 truckloads of explosives out of the area between 5 April and 8 May with American troops all over the  place.

The only way this is Bush's "fault" is if its the latter - and if you believe its the latter, its only because you WANT it to be Bush's fault.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #49 on: October 27, 2004, 08:22:04 pm »
The point of course is that there is no proof if they were there on April 4th since noone looked for them then

In which case there isnt any way you can point at Bush and blame him.



So the earliest point one can use is May 27th. Yet the Iraqi's themselves (who quote the May 27th date) claim it might also be September 4th.

No.  IAEA says they were there 15 March.   ISG arrived 8 May and reported there was nothing there on 27 May.

That means they disappeared between 15 March and 8 May with no proof they were there after 4 April.



If they used real trucks instead of pick-ups it could even take just one truck to move the stuff.

How do you move an Iraqi truck, even just one, on roads filled with American troops?

What do you suppose American soldiers would do when they found a lone Iraqi truck driving down thew road, a few miles from Baghdad?

What do you think the chances are of this 1 truck making 40 trips w/o being caught?


Moreover, why do you do it after the Americans have overrun the facility when you could have done it on 16 March?

Point is, the explosives are most likely in the hands of terrorists now.

And its just as likely they were put there before the Americans arrived in April.


It comes down to what you believe to be more likely:
-The Iraqis moved ~40 truckloads of explosives out of the area between 15 March and 4 April before American troops arrived;
-The Iraqis moved ~40 truckloads of explosives out of the area between 5 April and 8 May with American troops all over the  place.

The only way this is Bush's "fault" is if its the latter - and if you believe its the latter, its only because you WANT it to be Bush's fault.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2004, 08:48:33 pm by TA Pilot »

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #50 on: October 27, 2004, 09:09:34 pm »
Our troops were trained for months on how to deal with the Iraqi's.
According to Mr Kerry and the Democratic propoganda machine, "this administration made a choice to go it alone in the war in Iraq".  Therefore, when you say "our troops", you are wrong according to the words of  the Horse-faced Waffler.  You don't have troops there.  Ask Mr Kerry.  He'll be more than happy to tell you. ;)

Quote
But then Saddam didn't have any terrorist friends either.
And we know this to be true because the terrorists, who find nothing wrong with killing the infidel invaders for the good of their god, told us so.  So it simply must be true.  Or we could ask Mr Kerry, he'd probably like to pick this story up and use it for a few days...at least until the 2nd ;)
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #51 on: October 27, 2004, 09:32:24 pm »
"this administration made a choice to go it alone in the war in Iraq"


Apparently, "unilateral" had been re-defined to mean "without France and Germany, and without the blessing of the UNSC".

Either that, or the UK, Poland and Australlia are actually new states under the United States, and I missed the memo.

« Last Edit: October 27, 2004, 09:33:03 pm by TA Pilot »

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #52 on: October 27, 2004, 09:57:15 pm »
I know a thing or two about the military. ;)

But for everyone and anyone, it should be painfully clear that...

It comes down to what you believe to be more likely:
- Bush did his homework and knew there was 380 tons of explosives there but didn't even want to check on it, much less secure it.
- Bush didn't do his homework.

The only way this isn't Bush's "fault" is... umm...well... - and if you believe its not, its only because you don't WANT it to be Bush's fault.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #53 on: October 27, 2004, 10:11:31 pm »
I know a thing or two about the military.

Yes.   Thats why you're so quick to say that the field commanders were wrong.




It comes down to what you believe to be more likely

Nice try.  No cigar.  There FAR too many alternatives to your proposed choices to make it valid.  The very fact that the ISG was there 8 May illustrates this.

The same cannot be said for those choices I provided.

After all - why would the ISG go there when nothing was found there - -unless you had prior reason to believe that there -was- something there and you had to verify that it was missing.

Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that combat troops, in combat, on their way to the decisive battle of the campaign, did not stop to secure one of the several weapons storage sites they came across.  You're asking why the commander didnt change missions at the time  - and you're not a competent judge of the answer.



How do you move an Iraqi truck, even just one, on roads filled with American troops?

What do you suppose American soldiers would do when they found a lone Iraqi truck driving down thew road, a few miles from Baghdad?

What do you think the chances are of this 1 truck making 40 trips w/o being caught?

Moreover, why do you do it after the Americans have overrun the facility when you could have done it on 16 March?

It comes down to what you believe to be more likely:
-The Iraqis moved ~40 truckloads of explosives out of the area between 15 March and 4 April before American troops arrived;
-The Iraqis moved ~40 truckloads of explosives out of the area between 5 April and 8 May with American troops all over the  place.

Well?  Thjese questions arent rhetorical.



Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #54 on: October 27, 2004, 10:33:47 pm »
I've never commented on the field commander.  I'm commenting on Bush.  The stuff was last seen there.  It was supposed to be there.  If you've got people stopping by there anyhow, I see two options; secure it, or walk away from it leaving it unattended.  What are the other options? Hence:

It comes down to what you believe to be more likely:
- Bush did his homework and knew there was 380 tons of explosives there but didn't even want to check on it, much less secure it.
- Bush didn't do his homework.

The only way this isn't Bush's "fault" is... umm...well... - and if you believe its not, its only because you don't WANT it to be Bush's fault.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #55 on: October 28, 2004, 09:45:23 am »
I've never commented on the field commander.  I'm commenting on Bush.  

You think -Bush- gave the movement order to Baghdad?


The stuff was last seen there.

On 15 March 2003.
Of course, there's a question as to the quantity:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1

And there's the real possibility that they were moved pror to war - want to guess by whom?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm


If you've got people stopping by there anyhow, I see two options; secure it, or walk away from it leaving it unattended.

Given the circumstances, CLEARLY the commander on the ground made the decision to move on.  According to YOU that was the wrong decision.  How are YOU a competent judge?

(Never mind the HUGE probability that the explosives werent there)


So, why arent you answeing my questions?

Fear?

How do you move an Iraqi truck, even just one, on roads filled with American troops?

What do you suppose American soldiers would do when they found a lone Iraqi truck driving down thew road, a few miles from Baghdad?

What do you think the chances are of this 1 truck making 40 trips w/o being caught?

Moreover, why do you do it after the Americans have overrun the facility when you could have done it on 16 March?

It comes down to what you believe to be more likely:
-The Iraqis moved ~40 truckloads of explosives out of the area between 15 March and 4 April before American troops arrived;
-The Iraqis moved ~40 truckloads of explosives out of the area between 5 April and 8 May with American troops all over the  place.

Well?  These questions arent rhetorical.



danny_galaga

  • Grand high prophet of the holy noodle.
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8492
  • Last login:March 23, 2020, 04:25:58 pm
  • because the mail never stops
    • dans cocktail lounge
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #56 on: October 28, 2004, 11:52:30 am »

How do you move an Iraqi truck, even just one, on roads filled with American troops?

What do you suppose American soldiers would do when they found a lone Iraqi truck driving down thew road, a few miles from Baghdad?


that's the question, isn't it? i bet the families of fifty iraqi army recruits are wondering right now how their boys coulda been ambushed since the US army 'sees all'...


ROUGHING UP THE SUSPECT SINCE 1981

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #57 on: October 28, 2004, 12:00:20 pm »
that's the question, isn't it?


Yes.  And like everyone else, you dont offer an answer.

Oh, you think you're giving a clever answer in your reference to the ambush of some Iraqi soldiers, but in reality, you're just illistrating your ignorance - pulling off a one-time ambush isnt in any way comparable to moving several convoy of trucks through enemy-held territory.

Try again, sparky.


How do you move an Iraqi truck, even just one, on roads filled with American troops?

What do you suppose American soldiers would do when they found a lone Iraqi truck driving down thew road, a few miles from Baghdad?

What do you think the chances are of this 1 truck making 40 trips w/o being caught?

Moreover, why do you do it after the Americans have overrun the facility when you could have done it on 16 March?

It comes down to what you believe to be more likely:
-The Iraqis moved ~40 truckloads of explosives out of the area between 15 March and 4 April before American troops arrived;
-The Iraqis moved ~40 truckloads of explosives out of the area between 5 April and 8 May with American troops all over the  place.

Well?  These questions arent rhetorical.

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #58 on: October 28, 2004, 12:41:53 pm »

It comes down to what you believe to be more likely:
-The Iraqis moved ~40 truckloads of explosives out of the area between 5 April and 8 May with American troops all over the  place.

Well?  These questions arent rhetorical.


Your question may have just been answered:



"Minneapolis ABC affiliate, KSTP, broadcast footage shot in an are believed to be AlQaQaa on April 18th.  Their report describes:  "box after box... clearly marked "explosive." In one bunker, there were boxes marked with the name "AlQaqaa", the munitions plant where tons of explosives allegedly went missing."

...

"During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew bunker after bunker of material labelled explosives. Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get in and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords.

"We can stick it in those and make some good bombs." a soldier told our crew."

...

"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 in Iraq, said Iraqis were coming and going freely."

...

The NYTimes has even chatted w/ some looters from the site: (Registration Required)

BAGHDAD, 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.

...

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.


Personally, unlike Giuliani and the Bush White House, I'm not going to blame the troops. This munitions scandal is a direct result of a lack of sufficient numbers of boots on the ground and a complete lack of leadership. A C&C has the ultimate responsibility...It's a shame people seem to forget that when things aren't going well. If things were going swimmingly, how many aircraft carrier landings do you think Bush would partake in, in order to prove his godlike soldiering?

In other news: "Russia angrily denied allegations Thursday that Russian forces had smuggled a cache of high explosives out of Iraq (news - web sites) prior to the U.S. invasion in March 2003."

To me, it's clear Bush failed our troops, our nation, the Iraqi people and the world at large. Iraq has been one debacle after another. His excuses are crumbling around him, he can run, but he can't hide.

P.S. I'm back for a couple of days, then I'm back out to GOTV. I'll behave, but boy did I miss these threads.  ;)

Edit: Additional "smoking gun" photos added.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2004, 12:53:25 pm by mr.Curmudgeon »

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #59 on: October 28, 2004, 12:52:20 pm »
Your question may have just been answered

This doesnt answer my question.

LOTS of things are maked "explosive".   Unless you can show that these containers hold the explosives in question, its pretty meaningless.


And you STILL havent explained the logistics of moving 380 tolds of explosives from the facility, with American troops all around.

 

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #60 on: October 28, 2004, 01:01:27 pm »
Your question may have just been answered

This doesnt answer my question.

LOTS of things are maked "explosive".   Unless you can show that these containers hold the explosives in question, its pretty meaningless.

That's in the works...believe me. I not an explosives expert.

Per KSTP: "The footage is now in the hands of security experts to see if it is indeed the explosives in question."

That being said, as we await the verdict I'd like to ask you, if this stuff *is* proven to be the munitions in question, will that make any difference to you? Do you care that this junk is possibly blowing the arms and legs off of our men and women due to negligence on the part of Bush and his war planners? Or is it still more important to you that your boy win?

I'm just going to keep providing the latest evidence, I fully expect you to keep ignoring it. Maybe you'll suprise me, or maybe someone else will see the light (if it turns out to be the RDX in question)

Quote
And you STILL havent explained the logistics of moving 380 tolds of explosives from the facility, with American troops all around.

That, apparently, is a question you'll have to ask the Bush team.
 
« Last Edit: October 28, 2004, 01:13:39 pm by mr.Curmudgeon »

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #61 on: October 28, 2004, 01:07:41 pm »
That's in the works...believe me. I not an explosives expert. But I'd like to ask you, if this stuff is proven to be the munitions in question, will that make any difference to you?

I thnk the better question is:
With the million tons of ordnance in Iraq, 400,000 of which we have destroyed, why is this 380 tons that disappeared 18 months ago news?



I'm just going to keep providing the latest evidence, I fully expect you to keep ignoring it. [/]b

And when exculpatory evidence is posted, illustrating that the Bush administration could not have done a thing, you'll admit it - and then make sure the record is corrected.

Right?



That, apparently, is a quesiton you'll have to ask the Bush team.

Excellent cop out.  Better than I expected.
 

Quote

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #62 on: October 28, 2004, 01:19:30 pm »
That, apparently, is a quesiton you'll have to ask the Bush team.

Excellent cop out.  Better than I expected.
 

You don't find it the least bit ironic that you'd consider the idea of holding a president accountable a cop out? I guess it's denigrating his service to suggest you question him.

Oh btw, I did take this up with Bush and this is the answer he gave me (it's the same answer he gave the troops)




TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #63 on: October 28, 2004, 01:27:11 pm »
You don't find it the least bit ironic that you'd consider the idea of holding a president accountable a cop out?


No.

You cannot descibe how the things that would have had to have happened for your theory to be true.
You then say I have to ask Bush, as if your theory IS true.

Thats a cop-out.

Fact is, the chances of those things happening are so remote, its -impssoible- to imagine (mch less describe) how they could have happened -- and yet, they -all- have to have happened for your theory to be true.

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #64 on: October 28, 2004, 01:33:01 pm »
So this whole thing is *my* theory? m'kay...I guess I've just spent too much time living it up in the "reality-based community".

I'm just offering the latest in a string of news items that I happen to hope prove Bush's negligence. I couldn't have imagined something like this happening, but if it did, as implausible as it may seem...if the facts bear out, I will hold Bush responsible. You don't have too, obviously, been then again, you've already acknowledged that you wouldn't. So, *shrug*....
« Last Edit: October 28, 2004, 01:41:25 pm by mr.Curmudgeon »

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #65 on: October 28, 2004, 01:52:32 pm »
So this whole thing is *my* theory? m'kay...I guess I've just spent too much time living it up in the "reality-based community".

You're pushing the theory.  You dont agree with it?



I'm just offering the latest in a string of news items that I happen to hope prove Bush's negligence.

And you're offering no explanation for the things that would have to have happened for this to be negligence on Bush's part.



If you're the Iraqi in Charge, why do you wait until the Americans overrun the facility before you decide to get the explosives - when you could have done it, freely, after 15 March?



Dartful Dodger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3488
  • Last login:July 23, 2012, 11:21:39 pm
  • Newer isn't always better.
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #66 on: October 28, 2004, 02:01:33 pm »
Election Week Surprise?

Sorry if this was posted already, but I haven't the time to read all of these nonsense posts.

I just want to throw some gas on this fire.

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #67 on: October 28, 2004, 02:18:39 pm »
You're pushing the theory.  You dont agree with it?

I'm interested in it, and it's developing (as they say). Given that I believe the Bush regime to be completely inept and the war to be a sham, I am certainly more prone to expect this news to bare that out. I'm not a White House official so I don't have any more info than what the news is giving me, however, based on what has come out so far it looks bad for Bush. He has given *at least* 10-12 difference excuses for how this may have happened, when it may have happened, etc...so it's become increasing clear he has absolutely no idea how to respond, and that he very well may have covered this up. Again, we'll see as this pans out...


And you're offering no explanation for the things that would have to have happened for this to be negligence on Bush's part.

Ok...here's a scenario, see below...


If you're the Iraqi in Charge, why do you wait until the Americans overrun the facility before you decide to get the explosives - when you could have done it, freely, after 15 March?

Once the Americans came and left the site it became apparent to potential looters that it was up for grabs. Beforehand wouldn't they be worried that one of the largest ammo dumps in Iraq would be blown to smithereens by American forces? Wouldn't you salivate once those very same forces stopped by, left everything open (possibly breakin IAEA seals in the process) and moved along to glory in Baghdad?

It may even be possible that the Bush team struck a deal with Iraqis to move the munitions and were scammed (think Chalabi). The level of incompetence in this administration stuns me, and apparently it's even too much for you to accept. I happen to believe they are capable of it though, you don't seem to want to acknowledge the possibility.

So there. There are a couple possible explanations. However you feel about this, it's absolutely apparently that a large stockpile of explosives that were monitored and accounted for by the IAEA before Bush decided to go to war with Iraq has gone missing and may very well be blowing our troops apart in a country that doesn't want us there anyhow.

All goes back to another one of *my* theories that we are less safe now than before Bush's War in Iraq.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #68 on: October 28, 2004, 02:48:51 pm »
Given that I believe the Bush regime to be completely inept and the war to be a sham, I am certainly more prone to expect this news to bare that out.

But, should it be shown that the explosives were not there when we got there, are you willing to admit that its not Bush's fault?



He has given *at least* 10-12 difference excuses for how this may have happened, when it may have happened, etc...

All of which are perfectly reasonable.
At LEAST as reasonable as "the Iraqis stole it all while we were watching".

And there's absolutely NO evidence of a cover-up.



Once the Americans came and left the site it became apparent to potential looters that it was up for grabs.

You dont "loot" 380 tons of anything.

Lifting 380 tons of explosives is a significant logistical event.  It requires significant list assets, manpower, loading equipment, fuel, food, water, command, control and communications, security, etc.

And somehow, the Iraqis, who to this point had been falling apart and running away from our troops, were able to congeal enough of all of the above to lift all those explosives from under our nose, under combat conditions, without anyone noticing.

(Or... they moved it before we got there, something you seem unwilling to consider)



Beforehand wouldn't they be worried that one of the largest ammo dumps in Iraq would be blown to smithereens by American forces?

Before the war?  Why?  

And why is the danger of this GREATER than trying to lift it after we overrun it and have troops all over the place - when we could STILL bomb the facility while they were moving the materal WHILE engaging them on the ground.



It may even be possible that the Bush team struck a deal with Iraqis to move the munitions and were scammed (think Chalabi).

Ok - you've moved to fantasy...


The level of incompetence in this administration stuns me,

...and partisan bigotry.



So there. There are a couple possible explanations.

Yes.  And its also possible I will win the Powerball next time around.   But when you're asked to supply -reasonable- answers, you can't deliver...



Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #69 on: October 28, 2004, 03:48:57 pm »
Why was it not part of the mission to look to see if it was still there?  Bush doesn't want to answer that so he runs around and around and tries to change the question.  He did the same thing at the debates.  Here's what I want to know:

Did the administration know the stuff was there and if they did, why didn't they check up on it?  If they didn't, who didn't do their homework?

Seems to be the first question we should ask.  So TA, before we get to the logistics of moving the stuff, lets start at the beginning.

Question #1 - Did Bush know the stuff was supposed to be there?

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #70 on: October 28, 2004, 04:12:31 pm »
Why was it not part of the mission to look to see if it was still there?

The looked into what was necessary to ensure local security.  This is what combat troops do when halting movement towards an objective.  

You, again, are second guessing the commanders on the scene.  Stupid of you to do that.

See, there's all kinds of perfectly good reaosn to NOT stop an advance to secure overrun areas with combat troops - speed, momentum, initiative, superior force at the time and place of battle, economy of force.  Getting to Baghdad as soon as possible with as many troops as possible was deemed a better approach at defeating the Iraqis and then securing their munitions than moving slowly and securing every site as you go.

You, apparently, do not appreciate the necessity to move quicly and retain the initiative in a combat operation.  Clearly, you're again second guessing the commander on the field.  Again, its stupid of yuo to do that.




 So TA, before we get to the logistics of moving the stuff, lets start at the beginning.

No no no no no.

I have been asking my questions for more than a day.  They have to be answered before than can be ANY chance of the disappearance even having happened while we had control of the facility.  if you cannot reasonable show how they could have moved all that tonnage under the eyes of US troops, you dont have a case against Bush -- regardless as to if we knew the explosives were there or not.

You address my questions and then I'll address yours.

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #71 on: October 28, 2004, 04:26:46 pm »
No no no no no.

Even though it's the "Internets", do you still cover your ears when act like this?

Also,

Quote
It may even be possible that the Bush team struck a deal with Iraqis to move the munitions and were scammed (think Chalabi).

Ok - you've moved to fantasy...

Fantasy? Yeah, I guess it's kinda' silly. It's almost like suggesting that our government funded, and then the C.I.A. trained, Bin Laden and his crew. Unpossible!

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #72 on: October 28, 2004, 04:32:20 pm »
Even though it's the "Internets", do you still cover your ears when act like this?

Still dodging the questions?




Fantasy? Yeah, I guess it's kinda' silly. It's almost like suggesting that our government funded, and then the C.I.A. trained, Bin Laden and his crew. Unpossible!

Not even close to the same context - and inaccurate.  Wow.




mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #73 on: October 28, 2004, 04:46:26 pm »
...while we had control of the facility.  

First, where's your proof that we had "control" of the facility? The 101st admits to leaving it "unprotected." You haven't proven anything in your defense, and you are now falling back on "I asked you first!" Weak.

...if you cannot reasonable show how they could have moved all that tonnage under the eyes of US troops, you dont have a case against Bush

I gave you a possible scenario and you won't acknowledge it, you call it fantasy. Were we, or were we NOT betrayed by the now #1 terrorist, Bin Laden, in Afghanistan back in the 80's?
Why am I even asking you...you know this, but you'll avoid it.

You're beyond naive if you don't think it's even a *possibility* in Iraq, even when I point out that we were betrayed by Bush's #1 guy in Iraq, Chalabi, when it turned out he was an Iranian spy!!! I'm not saying Chalabi did it, just that there's proof from past events that our government has relied on completely untrustworthy people who committed egregious acts of betrayal. Don't write it off simply because you don't want to admit it.

We didn't have the troops to waste on a munitions dump this size, so why wouldn't it have been a possibility that we "outsourced" the job to Iraqis??

I didn't ask you to believe me, but you're a joke at this point if you can't acknowledge the possibility.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2004, 04:57:08 pm by mr.Curmudgeon »

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #74 on: October 28, 2004, 04:47:40 pm »

Not even close to the same context - and inaccurate.  Wow.

You provide powerful evidence in support of your theory. Wow.

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #75 on: October 28, 2004, 05:01:43 pm »
Still dodging the questions?

Is this your response to everything? I addressed your question head on, you don't want to acknowledge my answer because it doesn't fit with the narrative in your head (ie: Bush=God!) so you ignore it. Move along then, why do you debate if you don't want to hear anything from the other side? Seems to me your all about bloviating.

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #76 on: October 28, 2004, 05:03:03 pm »
You, apparently, do not appreciate the necessity to move quicly and retain the initiative in a combat operation.  Clearly, you're again second guessing the commander on the field.  Again, its stupid of yuo to do that.

What do you mean again?  I'm wasn't before and am not now second guessing the field commander. ::)

"On April 6, the battalion left for Baghdad. About four days later, another large unit, the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division, moved into the area. That unit did not search the al-Qaqaa complex. A unit spokesman said there was heavy looting in the area at the time."
What is your definition of "heavy looting"?  I picture vehicles being involved.  There's your answer.  Not only was it possble, it happened.  Looting was in full operation.  How many people?  How many vehicles?  What were the load ratings of said vehicles?  What cycle time did each vehicle have?  Beats me.  I didn't supervise the operation.  But the looting was happening right up until we stopped by again.  It is possible to move that quantity of materials in a short period of time.

"Getting to Baghdad as soon as possible with as many troops as possible was deemed a better approach at defeating the Iraqis and then securing their munitions than moving slowly and securing every site as you go."
 :-\  Heheh, next time you see a street gang, push one of them down and stand in the middle of the circle.

Anyhow, now to my question.  Did Bush know the explosives were supposed to be there?

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #77 on: October 28, 2004, 05:13:46 pm »
the "Internets"

HAHAHA!  I loved that.  I guess that's one thing he hasn't been accused of... being computer literate. ;)

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #78 on: October 28, 2004, 05:53:47 pm »
TA,

It isn't looking good for Bushie, and it's only getting worse...

BREAKING NEWS (10/28/2004 04:44:44 PM): (via KSTP)

[size=-2]Seals used by the IAEA (top). A seal on an Iraqi bunker door videotaped by a 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew on April 18, 2003[/size]

"A 5 Eyewitness News crew in Iraq may have been just a door away from materials that could be used to detonate nuclear weapons. The evidence is in videotape shot by Reporter Dean Staley and Photographer Joe Caffrey at or near the Al Qaqaa munitions facility.

The video shows a cable locking a door shut. That cable is connected by a copper colored seal.

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."

5 Eyewitness News continues to develop new leads and uncover new developments in this story."
(emphasis mine)

...

Tell me again how Bush has made us safer? "Nucular" materials, sealed and accounted for before Bush attacked Iraq...not anymore. With continued inspections we could have continued to actually destroy this tuff in a systematic manner. Now, it's out on the black market. Thanks Commander Shrub!


mrC
« Last Edit: October 28, 2004, 05:56:11 pm by mr.Curmudgeon »

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #79 on: October 28, 2004, 06:19:14 pm »
First, where's your proof that we had "control" of the facility? The 101st admits to leaving it "unprotected."

If we didnt have control of the facility, then there isnt any argument against Bush - and you cant argue the explosizes were taken from us while we controlled them.  Your best line of argument is to say that the 3ID had control and turned to to 101AB to then turned it to the ISG - and something happened to the explosives between 4/5 April and 8 May.



You haven't proven anything in your defense, and you are now falling back on "I asked you first!" Weak.

I'm not the one making charges - I dont have to prove anything.  

And yes - I did ask first  His question is an attempt to avoid mine (because he knows he can't answe them).  If my questions cant be answered then there isnt any way to make the charges against Bush stick as it is a necessary part of those charges.


 
I gave you a possible scenario and you won't acknowledge it, you call it fantasy.

I did, because it IS fantasty, and you cannot possibly support it.  



Were we, or were we NOT betrayed by the now #1 terrorist, Bin Laden, in Afghanistan back in the 80's?
Why am I even asking you...you know this, but you'll avoid it.


Given its complete irrelevance, I dont know why you're asking either.   Becausw e supported the Aghans againt the Russians, we must have contracted Iraqis to mopve the explosives?  

IS there a better example of non-sequitur?



Don't write it off simply because you don't want to admit it.

Why?  It sems you're written off the possibility that the explosives were taken before we got there.



We didn't have the troops to waste on a munitions dump this size, so why wouldn't it have been a possibility that we "outsourced" the job to Iraqis??

Did we let German POWs guard German prisoners and captured German weapons?  Would we?
Did we let Japanese POWs guard German prisoners and captured Japanese weapons?  Would we?

You want this to have ANY credibility?   Show some support for the argument -- else you're just grasping at straws.





Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #80 on: October 28, 2004, 06:23:58 pm »
They also said the US was warned the materials were there and that it was one of, if not the most dangerous weapon facilities in the country.
- Oops for Bush.  Should have made securing that stuff part of the mission.

cooTer   is two smArt"  mE knott dum like TA says
TA meen two cooTer.

Pretty hefty price to pay.  Bush IS at fault.  He didn't do his homework and people may die because of it.  It is the Presidents responsibility to ensure the safety of our troops.  Bush didn't do it here.  This isn't what happens if you are well prepared for war.  Bush should have known there was explosives there.  It should have been part of the mission to secure it.  Instead they weren't even told to see if it was still there.

Thanks for coming.  My work in this thread is done. ;)

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #81 on: October 28, 2004, 06:26:07 pm »
Is this your response to everything? I addressed your question head on, you don't want to acknowledge my answer because it doesn't fit with the narrative in your head (ie: Bush=God!) so you ignore it

No....
...as far as your answer actually addressed the questions, I refuted them.  Of course, the "we contracted the Iraqis to guard/mopve them and they stole them instead" theory really doesnt need a response.  You don't want to acknowledge my refutation because it doesn't fit with the narrative in your head (ie: Bush=Moron!) so you ignore it



Move along then, why do you debate if you don't want to hear anything from the other side? Seems to me your all about bloviating.

Ah....   You cant come up with a good answer, so you admit defeat.   I guess I should give you credit for being honest - at l;east as honest as liberal can be.

See, I DO hear your side:

-Bush = Moron
-There isnt any way this isnt Bush fault
-There isnt any way the Iraqis took these explosives before we got there
-No matter how difficult (read:impossible) it would be for the Iraqis to transport these weapons, they did it
-Bush contracted Iraqis to move them because we helped the Afghand agianst the Russians.

And THEN you expect to be taken seriously!



TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #82 on: October 28, 2004, 06:31:19 pm »
What is your definition of "heavy looting"?  I picture vehicles being involved.  

Holy Crap!!

YOU imagine vehicles!!  Well, that sure does it for ME!!!

Now think, really really hard....  it might hurt, but try...

What would US soldiers to when they saw Iraqi army trucks, with Iraqis all around them, in a munitions storage complex?



Anyhow, now to my question.  Did Bush know the explosives were supposed to be there?

Wait....   you think that after your answer, it matters?

Why?  You havent in any way answered the necessary questions in a manner that would make anyont think that the Iraqis had the capability to pull the explosives out from under us.

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #83 on: October 28, 2004, 06:32:14 pm »
Quote
You haven't proven anything in your defense, and you are now falling back on "I asked you first!" Weak.

I'm not the one making charges - I dont have to prove anything.  
Well you are the one claiming the subject of this thread is nothing but an "october surprise" and false. It seem pretty clear to me: high explosives where in safe storage; Bush goes gung-ho into Iraq; explosives are missing. You seem to be on the end that has to come up with some to proof if you want to refute this. The proof for "our" case is already there.
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #84 on: October 28, 2004, 06:35:47 pm »
The proof for "our" case is already there.

Except for the part where the explosives were there when we got there.

And that the Iraqis had the capability to move them -after- we got there.


I agree-- these are minor points; in fact they hardly matter at all.  You can ignore them, if they get in the way of your Bush = Moron premise.

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #85 on: October 28, 2004, 06:58:49 pm »
"Except for the part where the explosives were there when we got there."

Turn on the news TA.

The explosives were there and we didn't secure them.  Now they're all gone.  Gulianno says it's the soldiers fault it was stolen.  You can talk to him about that one.

*shuts lights off & locks door*

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #86 on: October 28, 2004, 10:39:49 pm »
Game. Set. Match.  

Cooter is absolutely right, turn on the news. It was the lead story on ABC, NBC, CNN and MSNBC. It's going to be even bigger tomorrow.

Video Suggests Explosives Disappeared After U.S. Took Control.

Report: Video Shows Explosives Went Missing After War

You'll continue to refuse to acknowledge it, but the rest of the country will hold Bush responsible. It is, after all, *his* war, and *his* doctrine of poorly planned preemptive attack.

We'll figure out how these weapons were moved, but probably not until after the election. Just because you can't wrap your mind around it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

To help you out with the rest of your arguments from this point forward and to save everyone else the time, here's shorter TAPilot: "What are ya' gunna believe, me, or your lyin' eyes?"

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #87 on: October 29, 2004, 01:08:57 am »
And for your viewing pleasure (or not) here, sez Tully, my "unbiased media source" ;D


Missing Explosives--A Summary
I've been digging into the evidence (and lack thereof) and reached the following conclusions, arranged in time-line order. None of them require noting the suspicious timing of the report after so many months, the threatened status of El Baradei as he seeks a new term as IAEA head over US objections, or any partisan inclinations on the part of the media outlets involved.

The U.S. asked the IAEA to destroy the stockpiles in 1995. The IAEA refused, citing the explosives as legitimate "dual-use" material. The material was present only because the IAEA under El Baradei refused to destroy it.

In December, 2002 the IAEA found that 35 tons of HMX was missing. The Iraqis claimed that it had been used for legitimate construction purposes. The IAEA began another inventory.

The stockpiles of explosives were last seen in early January, 2003, when the IAEA inventoried them and placed seals on the bunkers they were stored in.

In early March 2003 IAEA inspectors visited Al QaQaa and found the seals intact on the HMX bunkers (holding 192 tons at time of sealing). They were not permitted to check the RDX and PETEN bunkers, and this was noted in their report. NOTE: It is certainly possible for the Iraqis to fake seals in any case. The explosives were NOT "seen" in March. The seals on one set of bunkers were, and other bunkers were not seen at all because of Iraqi interference.

April 3, 2003--the 3rd ID comes through Al QaQaa. Reports differ--by some accounts they had a list of items to look for, and once CENCOMM was notified the items were not where they were supposed to be the 3ID was told to move on. Other accounts say they did not have a list. All accounts agree that they found a cache of "thousands of boxes" measuring 2 inches by 5 inches that contained "three vials of white powder" and chem/bio weapon instructions. The powder was tested and found to be explosives, and it is highly likely that this was HMX or RDX. By all accounts the complex had suffered air strike damage, many buildings were completely destroyed including two large bunkers, and many others severely damaged. There were large quantities of conventional munitions ("AK 47's, ammunition, and artillery shells") to be seen in some of the damaged and collapsed buildings. No reports that any IAEA seals were seen. By some accounts the vials found were destroyed, other accounts do not mention this.

(NOTE: If the "thousands of boxes" were RDX or HMX, it is worth noting that the full amount of 380 tons would have been many millions of boxes. This was not formed explosives, but raw material in a lightweight powder form. More on this later.)

April 10, 2003--the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne, with an NBC embed team along, stops in Al QaQaa for a 24-hour breather. They secure the area and rest. They do not have orders to search for the explosives. Some of the troopers check out the area--naturally, as securing the area requires some inspection. One of them (Ken Stillman) reports seeing two large empty bunkers with obvious signs of heavy traffic--lots of boot prints (not ours) and truck tracks. No signs of either the IAEA seals or explosives are reported.

On either May 7 or May 27 (I saw five accounts, with conflicting dates) the 75th Expeditionary Task Force (75ETF) arrives at Al QaQaa to "I & D"--inventory and destroy. The explosives are not there, and the already-damaged site shows signs of extensive looting. The 75ETF destroys piles of munitions and leaves.

Last date confirmed as actually present: January 2003. Date on which IAEA inspectors were NOT allowed to check all seals: Early March 2003. Dates on which US Troops visited and did not find any IAEA seals at all: April 3 and April 10. Date known for a fact to not be present: May 27, 2003.

A few more points. This is not some super-explosive, but raw material capable of making into plastic explosive roughly 20% to 50% more powerful than TNT by weight. It was not even in usable form, it was a fluffy plastic powder that required fillers, binders, and stabilizers to make usable explosives. When reconstituted, what you would have would be either Semtex or C4, depending on the binders and formulation, and you would still require detonators. All of those are already widely available in the Middle East. Artillery shells and other ordanance, already scattered over Iraq in the hundreds of thousands of tons, contains these materials in their usable form, and has the advantage of having the appropriate matching detonators already in place.

Damage to the two large destroyed bunkers (described by members of the 3ID and 101st as "craters with rubble centers") is consistent with impact detonation of large amounts of raw explosives. Could some have gotten out after we got there, and then left again? Sure, but unlikely. The fact that the boxes that were found were labelled as bio-weapons suggests they were intentionally placed as "scare tactics." The condition of the destroyed bunkers is inconclusive, but they could have had some quantity in them that got wiped in air strikes.

Odds that the material was moved out of the complex before Coalition troops arrived, during the period when Saddam was scattering his munitions all over the countryside, even sending convoys over the border into Syria--considerably good. Odds that part was dispersed by Saddam and that most of the rest went ka-boom in the air strikes, with little left to loot--also good. Odds that millions of boxes of fluffy white powder packed in vials could be moved out through the Coalition lines in bulk after US troops reached the area, all of them on high alert for anything that remotely resembled chem/bio weapons, without one single box being intercepted, and concealed so well that NONE of it has shown up since--just about zilch.

Just my take from an actual review of known accounts. Your mileage may vary.

Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #88 on: October 29, 2004, 01:36:24 am »
patrick, this was a story that was brought up (re-reported) again in an attempt to inflict maximum damage to Bush while leaving him as little time as possible to reply.  

Here, I'm gonna link a CBS site so you can feel comfortable with the source ::)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/iraq/main547667.shtml

If you need a bazillion more links stating the same thing using different words, let me know.  I've got 'em

Yet again, I state that this is a re-reported story that was so miniscule to the press at the time of the report that NO ONE can seem to remember that this was reported on.  And while this isn't the only source for the re-reporting of this story, it should be apparent to you that the story you were initially linked to was a re-issue of a news story over a year ago.

I believe the items in question were there.

My guess as to why this wasn't a headline story is that the powders in question are useless without the necessary ingredients and detonators to make them into something that IS useful, and I'd also be willing to bet that the SMALLER amount now being reported was more in line with what was there, and it was confiscated by the military, to be secured and possibly used by the U.S.

If we haven't found any WMD's in Iraq, and if the powders in question are powerful enugh to bring down a jet airliner all by themselves, then what exactly WOULD be classified as a WMD?

I ask because the press continues to prey on the ignorance of people and pound away at the "These were the explosives used to bring down Lockerbie something or other".     Things said to be able to blow up a plane......lets give out generalities......yet in reporting on WMD's, we're going to need specifics.

Please, someone, keep showing me where the mainstream media bias I speak of is just a fallacy ::)

Good to see you back MrC.  Home for the weekend, I presume?  Headed back out on the trail Sunday?
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

danny_galaga

  • Grand high prophet of the holy noodle.
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8492
  • Last login:March 23, 2020, 04:25:58 pm
  • because the mail never stops
    • dans cocktail lounge
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #89 on: October 29, 2004, 03:11:15 am »
If we haven't found any WMD's in Iraq, and if the powders in question are powerful enugh to bring down a jet airliner all by themselves, then what exactly WOULD be classified as a WMD?


 ;D


ROUGHING UP THE SUSPECT SINCE 1981

danny_galaga

  • Grand high prophet of the holy noodle.
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8492
  • Last login:March 23, 2020, 04:25:58 pm
  • because the mail never stops
    • dans cocktail lounge


ROUGHING UP THE SUSPECT SINCE 1981

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #91 on: October 29, 2004, 04:04:29 am »
patrick, this was a story that was brought up (re-reported) again in an attempt to inflict maximum damage to Bush while leaving him as little time as possible to reply.  

Here, I'm gonna link a CBS site so you can feel comfortable with the source ::)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/iraq/main547667.shtml
Well, I guess I need another link yeah. That link is about a complex which might have the same name. Nothing about looting and/or high explosives. You mean there can be only one article per complex? Maybe the whole war coverage is just a rerun of one news article since they all mention Iraq?

ps Perhaps you are confusing the looting of the Tuwaitha complex with this one?
« Last Edit: October 29, 2004, 08:42:19 am by patrickl »
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #92 on: October 29, 2004, 08:20:10 am »
I think Drew took care of pretty much what needed to be taken care of.

Never mind that we have pictures of Iraqi trucks at the site on March 17 2003:



This reconaissance picture, released yesterday, shows two trucks parked outside one of the 56 bunkers of the Al Qa Qaa Explosive Storage Complex on March 17, 2003, prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
(AP)


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041028-115519-3700r.htm

At this point, you people think the explosives were taken after we got there because you WANT to, not because there is any reason to.


patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #93 on: October 29, 2004, 08:36:51 am »
but then there are the videoimages taken on site that the barrels were still there on April 18th.  Now who is denying the truth?

Wouldn't it be a normal thing to get the ammunition from the depots just prior to an invasion? It strikes me as kinda lame that the pentagon doesn't say that these trucks are in front of the bunkers with the High Explosives. Isn't that something thats highly important? If not all you can say is that there were some trucks loading some stuff.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2004, 08:45:58 am by patrickl »
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #94 on: October 29, 2004, 09:04:41 am »
but then there are the videoimages taken on site that the barrels were still there on April 18th.  Now who is denying the truth?

the truth... that there were barrels there marked "explosive"?

Are there explosives other than RMX and HMX?  Yes?
So what do the videos prove?



Wouldn't it be a normal thing to get the ammunition from the depots just prior to an invasion?

Indeed.
And if these explosives are SO valuable that the Iraqis were willing to try to get them after the facility was overrun, why would they NOT pull them out before the war?

At this point, you people think the explosives were taken after we got there because you WANT to, not because there is any reason to.


patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #95 on: October 29, 2004, 10:33:31 am »
but then there are the videoimages taken on site that the barrels were still there on April 18th.  Now who is denying the truth?

the truth... that there were barrels there marked "explosive"?

Are there explosives other than RMX and HMX?  Yes?
So what do the videos prove?

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.

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."

(ed: the seals which they broke to open the bunkers)

Quote
Wouldn't it be a normal thing to get the ammunition from the depots just prior to an invasion?

Indeed.
And if these explosives are SO valuable that the Iraqis were willing to try to get them after the facility was overrun, why would they NOT pull them out before the war?
No that doesn't make sense at all. But that isn;t the point. There is PROOF that the explosives were there (either January 23, March 15th or April 18th) and they are now not there. Either way they are now gone and this could/should have been prevented. Especially if you set out to counter terorism in the first place.

Are you that blind a believer in Bush that you cannot even see this glaring problem?

Dear lord man. I can (with some problem) understand why Bush doesn't accept his mistakes, but to blame us for "wanting to see things" is rather lame. Come up with some proof and we'll argue further. Now you are just saying something like  "It's not true since I can't understand how terrorist can be clever"

Quote
At this point, you people think the explosives were taken after we got there because you WANT to, not because there is any reason to.
No. I'd rather have that the Russians did really take them home, but it unfortunately seems very unlikely.
This signature is intentionally left blank

Dexter

  • Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel. -- Irish, darnit!
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
  • Last login:May 22, 2015, 11:52:02 am
  • "MAKE POVERTY HISTORY......."
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #96 on: October 29, 2004, 10:39:45 am »
At this point, you people think the explosives were taken after we got there because you WANT to, not because there is any reason to.


I hate to upset your applecart but...(another pic)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20041028/ts_nm/iraq_explosives_abc_dc

There may have been enough troops in Iraq to secure oil and arms facilities/dumps if the Iraqis had welcomed them with flowers etc like Rummy presumed, but like the generals have been saying all along, there are insufficient numbers to do the job properly. Of course they went missing after the invasion, theres not enough men on the ground for guerilla warfare AND security detail.




patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #97 on: October 29, 2004, 10:55:49 am »
Never mind that we have pictures of Iraqi trucks at the site on March 17 2003:

This reconaissance picture, released yesterday, shows two trucks parked outside one of the 56 bunkers of the Al Qa Qaa Explosive Storage Complex on March 17, 2003, prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
(AP)

As I suspected, the satellite picture proofs nothing:
However, a comparison of features in the DoD-released imagery with available commercial satellite imagery, combined with the use of an IAEA map showing the location of bunkers used to store the HMX explosives, reveals that the trucks pictured on the DoD image are not at any of the nine bunkers indentified by the IAEA as containing the missing explosive stockpiles.

Amazing how they think something so stupid can fool people. Something like: "Uhm, well if we just don't say it's one of the actual bunkers they can never pin it on us and the dumb huddled masses won't see the difference anyway".
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #98 on: October 29, 2004, 11:18:51 am »
Amazing how they think something so stupid can fool people. Something like: "Uhm, well if we just don't say it's one of the actual bunkers they can never pin it on us and the dumb huddled masses won't see the difference anyway".

And so, because these trucks arent at those bunkers, there were no trucks at any other bunkers.

The POINT of the picture is to show that the Iraqis WERE moving things from the facility before the war.

But, of course, none of those things could have possibly been the explosives in question --  no, they were so important, they had to be ignored in March but then moved -after- we overran the facility.


And while its possible that the explosives in the video are indeed HMX/RMX or some other explosive, it -certainly- isnt 380 tons of it.


But then, since the IAEA cant actually say that there WERE 380 tons there in March - who knows how much is actually missing?





 

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #99 on: October 29, 2004, 11:44:17 am »
TA,

You wanted something to support my proposed theory on how 380 tons of explosives could be carted away out the front door, right under our noses?

Here:

"Group claims to have weapons
What's happened to the explosives is a mystery. A video surfaced Thursday in which a group calling itself Al-Islam's Army Brigades, Al-Karar Brigade, said it had coordinated with officers and soldiers of "the American intelligence" to obtain a "huge amount of the explosives that were in the Al-Qaqaa facility." (AP report/MSNBC)


...

"We promise God and the Iraqi people that we will use it against the occupation forces and those who cooperate with them in the event of these forces threatening any Iraqi city," the man added."



Again, I've been imploring you to admit that this was a possibility, and I've shown you something that supports that possibility. Whether it happened like this or not has yet to be ascertained. Long and short of it, the explosives were there after the fall of Baghdad, now they are gone. They left somehow, under Bush's poorly planned and executed war plan. Our troops have been left out to dry by this administration and now they face even more danger because of Bush Co.'s ignorance/arrogance.


mrC

P.S. Drew: Hullo! Yes, I'm taking a needed break from the trail, back out on Sunday in N.H. to GOTV again. Registering single individuals multiple times is hard work....   ;)

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #100 on: October 29, 2004, 12:14:02 pm »

At this point, you people think the explosives were taken after we got there because you WANT to, not because there is any reason to.



Viiiiiiiddddddddeeeeeeeeooooooooo! Say it with me now.....Video.

edit: link added.


« Last Edit: October 29, 2004, 12:16:06 pm by mr.Curmudgeon »

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #101 on: October 29, 2004, 12:19:08 pm »
I guess this one is dead. Plenty of evidence for the people who don't have their head in the sand.

TA, you would really look a lot less foolish if you would now and then fess up on your mistakes. Or if you can't do that at least just let the thread die. It's a bit depressing to see someone defending a lost cases like these. Amazing how you think just keeping on posting is some kind of debating technique. It's just an embarrassment technique really.
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #102 on: October 29, 2004, 12:24:11 pm »
It's a bit depressing to see someone defending a lost cases like these.

Wait....

Because there is video of what -may- be -some- of the explosives in question, it means that the Iraqis stole ALL of the explosoives (that the IAEA cant confirm was actually there) after we overran the facility?

Yeah..




TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #103 on: October 29, 2004, 12:28:51 pm »
Uh oh....

Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al QaQaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Officer was ordered to join the 101st airborne on April 13 -- to destroy conventional explosives at the al QaQaa complex... Developing...






mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #104 on: October 29, 2004, 01:32:09 pm »
TA,

Saw the press conference with the Soldier...Pentagon flak for Bush. Turned out to be a disaster once the press started asking questions. It was great!

My favorite part:

"Can you definitively say you moved the explosives under IAEA seal?"

"I... I don't know"


...

Then this, "IAEA confirming that the stuff they were just talking about in the press conference does NOT include the plastic explosives. And that the Bushies wouldn't let them in to inspect the sites WE were supposed to be watching."


All this press conference did is muddy the waters and give the Bushies something to hide behind for the next couple of days. This is a total GOP meltdown. It does illustrate one important point. This administration will not hesitate to sacrifice a member of the military when it is politically expedient.

Questions unanswered:
Did one guy move this? If not, who is "they"?

Did you bring an IAEA official with you to al Qa Qaa to help identify seals and materials? If not, why?

Did you document fully and video the movement and destruction of the materials? If not, why?

Will you swear under oath to the events you describe. If not, why?

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #105 on: October 29, 2004, 01:38:28 pm »
Yeah.

After all, its not possible that this guy -did- move some of the stuff.  

And its also not possible that the stuff wasnt there when he got there.

AND its not possible that the Iraqis didnt take it before we got there.

No, no, no!  The only possibility here is that Bush screwed up!!



Its amazing how quick Kerry supporters (and Kerry) are to villify members of the military.




patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #106 on: October 29, 2004, 02:22:33 pm »
Uh oh....

Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al QaQaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Officer was ordered to join the 101st airborne on April 13 -- to destroy conventional explosives at the al QaQaa complex... Developing...
Ah, some proof finally ... oh no ... just more smokescreen. Interesting theory though.

At least they came off their asses now that there is proof that the HMX and RDX were there on April 18th. Now see if they can really make a case
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #107 on: October 29, 2004, 02:31:06 pm »
Make their case?

You havent made yours.

All you have is that there was (supposedly) 377 tons of explosives in these bunkers in Jan 2003, there was some amount of some sort of explosives in one of the bunkers 18 April 2003, and none on 8 May 2003.

Thats the entire support for your case of Bush "dropping the ball".






patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #108 on: October 29, 2004, 02:35:30 pm »
Proof? Oh no none again. Why do you wake us up when you have nothing?
This signature is intentionally left blank

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #109 on: October 29, 2004, 02:55:43 pm »
Make their case?

You havent made yours.

All you have is that there was (supposedly) 377 tons of explosives in these bunkers in Jan 2003, there was some amount of some sort of explosives in one of the bunkers 18 April 2003, and none on 8 May 2003.

Thats the entire support for your case of Bush "dropping the ball".


Supposedly?

"In January 2003, IAEA inspectors viewed and inventoried the explosives at Al-Qaqaa for the last time. They placed fresh seals over the bunker doors. On March 15, 2003 inspectors visited Al-Qaqaa for the last time but apparently did not examine the explosives because according to their report, the seals on the bunker doors were not broken."

You must believe the Russians sucked it out the air vents.

Sorry, Bush dropped the ball. But if you need to ignore that in order to pull the lever on Tues., so be it.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #110 on: October 29, 2004, 03:24:36 pm »
Supposedly?

Yes.  Supposedly.  The IAEA did not confrim the tonnage on 15 March.

The documents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility. Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1

This ignores the issue about not knowing exactly what was in them to begin with, which you will also find in the story I cited.  Its hard to claim that Bush allowed 377 tons to be stolen when they cant say for certain that 377 tons were there to begin with.


So, all you have is that there was (supposedly) 377 tons of explosives in these bunkers in Jan 2003, there was some amount of some sort of explosives in one of the bunkers 18 April 2003, and none on 8 May 2003.

This proves...  nothing.


Now, if you believe that this proves that Bush did drop the ball, and that's what it takes for you to be able to vote for Kerry - so be it.





Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #111 on: October 29, 2004, 04:00:02 pm »
Think about it TA.
"if you believe that this proves that Bush did drop the ball"

SCENARIO 1:  Bush knew the material was supposed to be there, but didn't tell the guys to look for it & secure it.  He dropped the ball in this scenario.

SCENARIO 2:  Bush didn't know the stuff was supposed to be there.  Poor planning, the information was there.  He dropped the ball in this scenario.

I'm not using hindsight, I'm not second guessing, I'm not blaming the troops.  Either come up with a different scenario or accept one of those.  Bush screwed up.  Who care who did what after the fact.  This is straight up ignorance on the part of the Bush administration.

"So, all you have is that there was (supposedly) 377 tons of explosives in these bunkers in Jan 2003, there was some amount of some sort of explosives in one of the bunkers 18 April 2003, and none on 8 May 2003.

This proves...  nothing."


This proves everything.  I don't care what the exact weight was.  It should have been zero.  It wasn't.  Why? Because Bush didn't do his homework.  Either he didn't know about it, or he didn't care what happened to it.

Why are you even questioning the tonnage?  Back on page 1 you were saying:
"You do not "loot" 380 tons of explosives.
You move them with trucks.  Lots of them.  ~40 10-ton trucks, to be more precise."

Your whole arguement rested on there being too much to move.  Now you insinuate there was very little.

My question to you hasn't changed.  Nor has my arguement.  When will you answer?

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #112 on: October 29, 2004, 04:12:12 pm »
Either come up with a different scenario or accept one of those

Scenario 3:
The explosives in question were gone before we got there.

Scenario 4:
We took the explosives and disposed of them.


 This is straight up ignorance on the part of the Bush administration.

Given the evience you have to support your charges, and the timing of its release, its far better characterized as a bitter, partisan effort to affect the election.



This proves everything.

No.   It doesn't.  
It doesnt prove that the explosives were there when we got there
It doesnt prove that the explosives were anywhere near the quantities charged
It doesnt prove the Iraqis took it.

Unles you can do those things, you have nothing.




Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #113 on: October 29, 2004, 04:30:08 pm »
I don't need to prove any of those things.  And you didn't answer.


Did Bush know the stuff was supposed to be there?

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #114 on: October 29, 2004, 09:46:25 pm »
SCENARIO 2:  Bush didn't know the stuff was supposed to be there.  Poor planning, the information was there.  He dropped the ball in this scenario.
what information was there, and who did this information come from?  They were in the area back in April 2003 and this is being reported NOW.  Who had information, what was this information, and where was this information?


Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #115 on: October 30, 2004, 10:55:57 am »
I don't need to prove any of those things.

For the loss of the explosives to be our fault?
Yes.  You do.   Each and every part.


mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #116 on: October 30, 2004, 02:50:40 pm »
For the loss of the explosives to be our fault?
Yes.  You do.   Each and every part.


Only the amount is in dispute, TA, you know that...

There is irrefutable proof that there was a large portion of explosives left unguarded, all of which has gone missing. What is your point? It's *ok* if it was just 200 tons, or 100 tons of material?  Do you care so little for our troops that you'd seek to differentiate between the levels of incompetence in this administration? Making them partial incompetent, or completely incompetent. Why are you so comfortable lowering the bar for Bush? Is that the only way you can support him?

Also, to further bolster the rational case we've made against whatever argument it is you've been trying to put forth (you really aren't doing very well), there is this latest news:

"A French journalist who visited the Qaqaa munitions depot south of Baghdad in November last year said she witnessed Islamic insurgents looting vast supplies of explosives more than six months after the demise of Saddam Hussein's regime."

Put this together with the fact that, Maj. Pearson, when asked at the Pentagon CYA conference, if insurgents could have carried off 150 tons of that stuff in a short period of time as a practical matter. He replied that it seems like a lot, but in fact it could be done really quickly. (ie: given enough time, you don't need vast amounts of heavy equipment), How do you argue against the fact that this shows a large (by any amount) stash of extremely deadly explosives and ammunition (not the same thing), left completely unguarded for an extended period of time?

Again, Game. Set. Match.

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #117 on: October 30, 2004, 02:59:28 pm »
And finally, I'd invite anyone whose even in the least bit curious to actually *watch* the press conference and tell me these guys aren't up a river without a paddle. It's a total GOP meltdown and it's disgusting to watch them hide behind a soldier who probably still has sand in his boots after being swept out of Iraq to cover Bush's ass.


rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/iraq/iraq102904_dod.rm?mode=compact (Real Video Stream/Via: CSPAN)



patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #118 on: October 30, 2004, 05:26:45 pm »
I couldn't watch the video on your link, but I saw the press conference on CNN and I felt really sorry for that army guy too. He was clearly not comfortable with the whole situation and he didn't even know any answers. Just like the satellite picture showing "trucks in front of bunkers loading (or maybe even unloading?) stuff" he "moved stuff from bunkers".

What was even more pathetic was that you could see he was drilled to give the answers he gave. The spokesperson (Di Rita?) was nodding and almost mouthing the words when the soldier spoke his standard catch phrases: "We were there to minimalize damages to bla bla bla bla ...".

But as I said before, at least they came of their asses after the proof was show that the stuff was still there on april 18th. They had a month to come up with a good answer and now all of a sudden they drop this poor guy in the sharktank to cover their asses. Deeply sad.
This signature is intentionally left blank

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #119 on: October 30, 2004, 10:20:02 pm »
Who had information, what was this information, and where was this information?

[Sorry it took awhile to get back Drew]  That info is what I'm trying to find out.  If the IAEA rated that place as one of, if not the most important areas for weapons, why didn't we know about it and want to secure it?  Shouldn't we have studied that kind of information before going in?

So far:
"The explosives were known to have been housed in storage bunkers at the sprawling Al-Qaqaa complex and nearby structures. U.N. nuclear inspectors placed fresh seals over the bunker doors in January 2003. The inspectors visited Al-Qaqaa for the last time that March 15 and reported that the seals were not broken, concluding that the weapons were still inside at the time."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933

So the UN knew the stuff was there, the IAEA knew, wouldn't that make it very easy for us to know?  Then we should have checked to see if it was there at the first visit.  If so, secure it.  It just doesn't make any sense to tell those guys to "rest at the giant explosives depot, then continue to Bagdhad".  Those guys on the videos didn't even know what the seal meant.  The Bush Administration messed up.  That's the only conclusion I can come to.  It's not the field guys fault when they weren't told about it or what the seals even meant.
(enter Bush) It's what you call a... lack of intelligence. (que smirk)
« Last Edit: October 30, 2004, 10:23:25 pm by Crazy Cooter »

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #120 on: October 31, 2004, 01:43:50 am »
"Back in 1995 the UN was asked to destroy these explosives. They didn't do so on the basis that they weren't part of a WMD program and therefore they weren't that important, and it was Hans Blix that ran the International Atomic Energy Agency at that point.
One of his underlings, one of his interns was Mohammed ElBaradei. So what they did instead of destroying the explosives, they sealed them.  Today we learn that the seals were ineffective because of ventilation slats on the sides of the Al Qaqaa dump! So the seals were ineffective. This is a botched job from the get-go by the IAEA and it is apparent that what's happening here is the UN botched this and is trying to shift blame to the Bush administration -- with the willing accomplices and the assistance of the New York Times, CBS and the John Kerry campaign."

Couldn't have said it better myself.  

Is that the info we should have had and worked on accordingly?  That seals were placed on "non-important weapons", and only now, less than a week before the elections, coincidentally
 ::)
has it just been discovered that these indeed were worth protecting?

Really, what is it?  The info we went to war on you guys call B.S. on, yet we are supposed to have acted with surety and decisive action based on info from the U.N.  

Then, according to the inspectors, there were no WMD's, these powders were cosidered to be non-important, and NOW these powders should have been protected with all the security measures Bush could dream up,

The purpose of these powders is that they are meant to be used with WMD's, and although WMD's "NEVER EXISTED"  ::) in Iraq, NOW you feel some outrage over the fact that these items were removed somehow, some time, although the time, person, and date they were removed has never been given.  You too are willing to run with a story that thus far is over a year old and has the specifics of a guess at the amount of jellybeans in a jar.

What's next?  Are we gonna find out that the "weapons" being sold to Sadaam in violation of the sanctions were really blowdart guns  ::)

There's a few more days.....hey, I opened my window and felt the wind blowing.  Does that mean a few MORE of your positions are gonna change?
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #121 on: October 31, 2004, 02:02:42 am »
If this guy's a Brit, then there truly IS hope for England!  Here's hoping more of them read and hold his opinion than we have been led to believe by the people who serve as mouthpieces for them.  I suspect it IS more like this, we just have to grease the pieholes of those few squeaky wheels

But for all this, if I had a vote on Tuesday I would be voting to re-elect President Bush.

It is partly Mr Bush
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #122 on: October 31, 2004, 04:35:27 am »
"Back in 1995 the UN was asked to destroy these explosives. They didn't do so on the basis that they weren't part of a WMD program and therefore they weren't that important, and it was Hans Blix that ran the International Atomic Energy Agency at that point.
They are dual use explosives. Not completely illegal is something different than "not important". You really should read more unbiased sites Drew. If you only read distorted information then you will stay ignorant to the whole story.

Besides, why did the IAEA put seals on them and why did they check those seals later? Yes, because they were important. These explosives can be used in a nuclear device. If someone is willing to steal these explosives right from under the noses of an army then they must have some intentions with them. So in fact the negligence of Bush to check up on these explosives made it more likely that a nuke will go off in NYC.
This signature is intentionally left blank

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #123 on: October 31, 2004, 01:39:03 pm »
They are dual use explosives. Not completely illegal is something different than "not important". You really should read more unbiased sites Drew. If you only read distorted information then you will stay ignorant to the whole story.

Besides, why did the IAEA put seals on them and why did they check those seals later? Yes, because they were important.
and again, if they were so important, why were they not destroyed in 1995, instead of "putting a seal" on them?  

You continue to point to the negligence of Bush to act upon some report by the agency who didn't think them important enough to do anything about OTHER than "put seals on them".  

Explain how putting seals on something make them unusable.  If you can't show they were unusable, then they indeed WERE usable, and PUTTING A SEAL ON THEM is akin to telling a kid "don't touch that" after he's touched it 50 times already.  

Do you not get that people who would supposedly loot/steal this stuff WON'T be stopped by some lame seal (if, indeed that is what has happened.  I'm still waiting for the story that gives us proof, rather than speculation, that this is what happened - talk about reading biased reports ::))?  

If these items in question were dealt with in 1995, rather than left there to be stolen in 2003, this wouldn't even be an issue right now.  You claim biased reporting keeps me ignorant.  I claim that you not using your head as to basic facts on this story is planned ignorance.  

How do you dismiss the fact that the IAEA dealt/reported/sealed the stuff in 95?  

What could a governor of Texas POSSIBLY have to do with an international investigation in 1995 (and SUE me if my recollection of when Bush became governor is wrong, I'm not looking it up, because then it just becomes worse, that you're trying to blame this on a Major League Baseball team owner)

These weapons should have been dealt with in 1995.  No question about it.

You can't claim some crap theory that Bush should have known, listened to, interpreted, and acted upon information from an agency that thought these items to be so insignificant that they didn't remove them themselves.  It simply doesn't wash, and your ignorant bias is clouding your assessment of the situation.

Call me when the U.N. ISN'T involved in keeping weapons in Iraq, or having member countries work to ship in whatever Sadaam wanted.  

You want to blame Bush for everything while giving the U.N. a blanket pass on responsibility.  The "savior" you paint the U.N. as has served ONLY to further show WHY we should have gone in, and why the U.S. should not only ignore 'em, but to act contrary to whatever they decide.  It seems whatever is opposite seems to be the right thing to do.

You say terrorism is up, the reports on actions are up....tell me, do those reports you point to show WHAT hey are reporting, as it seems to me that including all the stuff going on in Iraq would indeed raise that number.  And it's an increase I'm perfectly happy accepting, as it's happening over THERE, instead of over HERE.  I can see the zeal coming if there is an attack in the next two days before our election (SEE, SEE!  WE TOLD YOU SO, WE TOLD YOU SO!)
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #124 on: October 31, 2004, 02:02:10 pm »
They are dual use explosives. Not completely illegal is something different than "not important". You really should read more unbiased sites Drew. If you only read distorted information then you will stay ignorant to the whole story.

Besides, why did the IAEA put seals on them and why did they check those seals later? Yes, because they were important.
and again, if they were so important, why were they not destroyed in 1995, instead of "putting a seal" on them?  

You continue to point to the negligence of Bush to act upon some report by the agency who didn't think them important enough to do anything about OTHER than "put seals on them".  
They weren't illegal if they were used for construction work so inspectors weren't allowed to destroy them as per the resolution.

Amazing how you can destort the truth to fit your own petty little world.

Quote
You say terrorism is up, the reports on actions are up....tell me, do those reports you point to show WHAT hey are reporting, as it seems to me that including all the stuff going on in Iraq would indeed raise that number.  And it's an increase I'm perfectly happy accepting, as it's happening over THERE, instead of over HERE.
That's just the lame truth yes. Make sure there is always a war and the terrorists will rather go there. Burn the earth and you will be safe yourself. All the good comes from America ho yeah. That sure is a pathetic way to look at things. Man can you sink any lower. You really deserve a retard like Bush. 4 more years of that fool and your country will be at war with everyone and completely broke. If a few terrorist attacking is enough to bring down the US what do you think will happen if you really piss enough people off?
This signature is intentionally left blank

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #125 on: October 31, 2004, 02:50:28 pm »
Drew is all worked up today ;)

Think of dental floss.  You can use it to clean your teeth or you can use it as a garrot.  If a wacko needs some to clean his teeth, but has used it as a garrot before, you need to keep an eye on the dental floss supply.  So you monitor the medicine cabinet and only allow him to use enough to clean his teeth.  This is a dual use item.

Now suppose you leave because I come in.  I don't monitor the dental floss.  I don't even look to see where the dental floss is.  Patrick stops by and notices the dental floss is all gone.  Who is to blame?

a- You, because you let him keep dental floss around.
b- Me, because I didn't check on it.
c- Patrick, for some other reason.
d- The media.

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #126 on: October 31, 2004, 06:20:38 pm »
amazing how the "construction materials" wouldn't be able to be used by the "construction crews"  since they were sealed, and they remained sealed for 9 years.

Your dental floss comparison is idiotic.  If I monitored your use of dental floss, you'd still be allowed to use it, right?  Or didn't you think your comparison all the way through?  

These weapons were sealed, they weren't monitored to ensure their use was legit, and 9 years later, it suddenly becomes Bush's fault that the people in charge of the materials in the first place were so unconcerned by the possible deadly use of them that they "sealed them up"...probably with the same retarded dental floss Cooter wants to monitor.

Patrick, you think you're safer in your country sitting there being pacifists.  Who do you think they will turn against if they ever DO defeat the U.S.?  You think they're gonna sit there and twiddle their thumbs and contemplate how nice their world is now that we're out of it?  Your lollipops and rainbows view is fine, as long as America is there as a shield between you and the terrorists who hate anyone NOT muslim, and hate (but to a lesser degree) anyone else not muslim ENOUGH!

You're right, we DO deserve Bush, but unfortunately, the people of this country have a say, and their voice will be heard in ~3 days.  If enough people have been paying attention BEFORE the elections got into full swing and used their heads, we'll get what we deserve.  If enough people show up who couldn't have cared less and get all their voter information from TV and newspapers, we won't get what we deserve, we'll elect Kerry instead.
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #127 on: October 31, 2004, 07:01:51 pm »
Patrick, you think you're safer in your country sitting there being pacifists.  Who do you think they will turn against if they ever DO defeat the U.S.?  You think they're gonna sit there and twiddle their thumbs and contemplate how nice their world is now that we're out of it?  Your lollipops and rainbows view is fine, as long as America is there as a shield between you and the terrorists who hate anyone NOT muslim, and hate (but to a lesser degree) anyone else not muslim ENOUGH!
Are you missing the fact that in Europe the terrorist threat was actually decreasing (at least before Bush started his mess) and everywhere else it's increasing?

Seriously, not even you can believe terrorists are a threat to a country. By definition, terrorists are annoying, but not a threat to whole country. The only thing that is really is a grave danger is people overreacting to a terrorist threat.

You really have such a weird outlook on life that I wonder why you aren't in a nice padded room somewhere.
This signature is intentionally left blank

Santoro

  • Purveyor of Shiny Arcade Goodness
  • Santoro
  • Trade Count: (+31)
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3035
  • Last login:May 12, 2019, 07:32:34 pm
  • Boycott Quarters!!!
    • ArcadeReplay!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #128 on: October 31, 2004, 07:26:06 pm »
Seriously, not even you can believe terrorists are a threat to a country. By definition, terrorists are annoying, but not a threat to whole country.

:o

OMG this makes it official.  You have no grasp on reality.  If you think that 3000 dead with the potential of larger attacks is not a threat, you.....

well never mind.  I'll keep it gentlemanly.  

This is the reason I started the Sept 11 thread.  People are in complete and utter denial about what happened that day, and about what the US is up against.  Let me remind you.  The people below are preparing to jump rather than burn alive, right before the f-ing building collapsed.

{image removed out of courtesy because the reality of 911 being proven was too much for a certain board member to handle.}

May you never be forced to wake up from that dreamland you are in.  It was fun for me there pre-9/11 also.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2004, 04:25:43 pm by Santoro »

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #129 on: October 31, 2004, 07:36:12 pm »
Seriously, not even you can believe terrorists are a threat to a country. By definition, terrorists are annoying, but not a threat to whole country.

:o

OMG this makes it official.  You have no grasp on reality.  If you think that 3000 dead with the potential of larger attacks is not a threat, you.....
No, this is not a threat to a country as a whole. How can this attack make the terrorists "take care of the US"? It will of course kill people so the police should try to prevent it, but there is no way terrorists can take over a country. Their aim is to scare people. If you get scared they have won.

That's what I found disrespectful about the thread you started. These people died because of the actions people like Bush undertake. You now try to abuse their death to scare people into voting for Bush because apparently he can instill a blind belief in people that he can actually take care of terrorism. Over here he would be institutionalized for claims like that.
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #130 on: October 31, 2004, 08:14:17 pm »
No, this is not a threat to a country as a whole. Their aim is to scare people. If you get scared they have won.

Terrorists arent just trying to scare people... they have an agenda, and they further their agenda through fear.

Their agenda is a threat to the -free world- as a whole, to say nothing of the country.



You now try to abuse their death to scare people into voting for Bush because apparently he can instill a blind belief in people that he can actually take care of terrorism. Over here he would be institutionalized for claims like that.

Interesting observation.
Kerry makes the same claim.
Would he be instatutionalized as well?


Santoro

  • Purveyor of Shiny Arcade Goodness
  • Santoro
  • Trade Count: (+31)
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3035
  • Last login:May 12, 2019, 07:32:34 pm
  • Boycott Quarters!!!
    • ArcadeReplay!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #131 on: October 31, 2004, 09:30:21 pm »
...people died because of the actions people like Bush undertake.

The 9/11 attacks were in planning at the end of the Clinton era.  The 1993 WTC bombing was under Clinton's watch.  This isn't a 'people like Bush' phenomenon.

Quote
You now try to abuse their death to scare people into voting for Bush because apparently he can instill a blind belief in people that he can actually take care of terrorism. Over here he would be institutionalized for claims like that.

Well then, I sure am glad I am not 'over there.'   I will ignore your insult because I have already established you are not living in the real world.  I was there, I saw it, I lost friends.  It must never happen again.. ever.  The reason I brought it up was after seeing that so many people arguing in the threads here, it was being treated as a minor attack. Like a routine car bombing in Israel or Northern Ireland.  

9/11 was a hundered times bigger than any terrorist attack before it.  It was comparable to Pearl Harbor.  I will not let the deniers forget it.   I do this so that others never have to go through what the WTC occupants did.  I defy you to get a copy of the '911' documentary and tell me after watching it that 9/11 was not a threat to my country.  {edit:  They needn't 'take over' the country to destroy it.  2-3 dirty bombs in major cities could wipe out our economy.}

You can believe that I am 'abusing thier' deaths if you like.  While you are at it, please say 'hi' to Elvis for me..

Anyway, this is why I hate debating politics.  I am not having fun here, and all I am learning is that in general the world seems to care more about terrorist's rights than US security.  Yet we always send our troops and money when one of you all gets in trouble.  It is so very incredibly frustrating.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2004, 09:45:26 pm by Santoro »

Crazy Cooter

  • Senator Cooter was heard today telling the entire congressional body to STFU...
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
  • Last login:October 27, 2019, 12:18:11 am
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #132 on: October 31, 2004, 09:52:00 pm »
"VIENNA (Reuters) - The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency is unlikely to drop plans for a new term despite U.S. anger after pre-election revelations of missing Iraq explosives, a diplomat close to the agency said on Saturday.

A senior U.S. official said on Friday the Bush administration would seek to unseat International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei if Bush is re-elected president. ...
If Bush wins re-election next Tuesday, the plan is "to move from urging him to (leave the IAEA) to active opposition" to his reappointment, the senior U.S. official told Reuters."

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6666162&src=rss/topNews&section=news
Yeah, Bush is on the up-n-up.  What a bitter, spiteful man.  Yet another instance where Bush wants to burn someone because they aren't doing as he would like.

Drew, this stuff was sealed up because we were afraid of it being used to detonate a Nuke.  The material itself wasn't necessarily "banned".  The "retarded dental floss" worked (except on one occasion, but the material was returned).

Santoro, I think what Patrick is saying is that it is a threat, but it shouldn't be a threat to the ways of our Nation (Correct me if I'm wrong).  That's what I've been trying to say.  Consider that in 2001, there were 848 more deaths and 1134 fewer wounded than in 2000.  These are worldwide numbers.  That's why I say that 9/11 opened the eyes of people that didn't see terrorism before.  If anyone was dreaming, it was America.  Most Americans were unaware of what was going on around them.  The rest of the world has been seeing this stuff for a long time.  Now I hear people say we are fighting the war "there" instead of "here".  It doesn't make sense.  It's not really a choice that can be made.  We can break up some groups and disrupt them, but attacks will continue to happen all around the world from other groups and eventually something will happen here again.  It probably won't be Bin Laden's nutjobs, but it will happen.  There are countries that US citizens should not even step foot in.  Read the travel advisories: http://travel.state.gov/travel/warnings.html  Like I said, this stuff has been happening for a long time.  Adopting a NIMBY attitude won't help.  Terrorism is global problem and needs a global effort to minimize it.  We just don't have the resources where we can say at any point "the war is over".  We need to bring in more help.

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #133 on: October 31, 2004, 10:39:02 pm »
These people died because of the actions people like Bush undertake.
before we were attacked on 9/11, Bush had done nothing.  Go ahead, ask any liberal in America.  We couldn't hear ENOUGH of how much Bush WASN'T doing, and now YOU want to blame Bush's actions, which were nonexistent towards terrorists, for the deaths there.  

As Santoro stated, they tried to blow up the WTC during Clinton's watch.  What was he doing to piss them off?

Again, your grasp of time is simply staggering.  Things happen years ago, and the only reason you seem to find fault with what's happening now is some mythical "Bush brought it on America" theory.  

You stating it's Bush's fault doesn't change the fact that things might be happening now that could have been prevented years ago by the very people who are now clamoring about how Bush screwed up.  

The U.N. has shown obvious corruption in its plans to "help" the Iraqi people, whether you want to admit it or not.  That's not being debated, as everyone accepts it.  Where you veer off the road is the ability to connect the dots, see that one corruption isn't simply an isolated incident.  We supposedly find out about how "weapons" are stolen (who did it, when was it done, how much, and why?) which should have been destroyed, or at the very least (I'll put this in slo-mo format so even you can understand it) should have been R-E-M-O-V-E-D by this corrupt organization.  They've found someone to conveniently pin it on, and you're a willing accomplice.  

You again seek to find justification for why the U.N. and it's investigations were legit, but can't seem to figure out how anyone with half a brain can think that these items may not have ever been there in the first place, but if they were, the IAEA was the body responsible for securing them, was the body responsible for them still being in that location, and used such minimal security precautions that it can ONLY be thought that they felt these materials to be INSIGNIFICANT.

That you would think otherwise is to know you only wish to have Bush removed, and for no other reason than you just don't like him.

You can say what you wish about Bush, but we've been attacked several times, from Clinton's watch through Bush's.  The people attacking us hate our way of life, and hate the fact that we are not religiously pure, as they believe themselves to be.  You believe all that you want about us crapping on their fire rings, its a religious war to them, plain and simple.  Continuing to close your eyes to it doesn't make it less true, it just keeps you ignorant and willing to blame anyone other than the people who bear the responsibility for the consequences - the terrorists, and all who would provide aid, comfort, and safe harbor for them.
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #134 on: October 31, 2004, 11:06:19 pm »
What a bitter, spiteful man.  Yet another instance where Bush wants to burn someone because they aren't doing as he would like.
We see collossal failure on the IAEA's part when first discovering these items, and you think it spiteful to want the head of the organization out.  Kinda makes me wonder, if you'd give THAT guy a pass, why don't you also wish to give Bush the same pass.  Same thing by your reasoning - they let the "weapons get looted/stolen and into the hands of terrorists".  What's your reasoning on one, but not the other?  Oh, that's right, Bush is ugly, stupid, and talks funny.


Quote
Drew, this stuff was sealed up because we were afraid of it being used to detonate a Nuke.  The material itself wasn't necessarily "banned".  The "retarded dental floss" worked (except on one occasion, but the material was returned).
Now you're trying to paint this stuff as being "sealed up".  The seals were at best a preventative to using the materials which seem to be easily defeated with wire cutters.  They weren't cemented into the bunkers.  If they could be easily looted/stolen, then they weren't SUFFICIENTLY "sealed up" enough to prevent their theft and possible use.  If you are claiming that they were sealed up to prevent use with Nukes, then you've got nothing to worry about, right?  There WERE NO NUKES over there, as you're wont to tell us, and since the "sealing" was so stellar as to prevent their use in detonating a nuke, we're still safe.

The "seal" was a deterrent, like a latch on a gate.  You're now trying to paint it as if these items had a latch on the gate, the latch was locked, and the latch was sealed in concrete.  These weapons didn't need to be "sealed up".  They needed to be removed or destroyed when they were found.  Period.  You're making excuses and allowances for a corrupt organization (the U.N.) and attempting to pin it on a man who shouldn't have even needed to deal with them, but for the failure of the U.N.  Where's your outcry of indignation against the U.N. ?  Instead of asking why Bush didn't do anything about them, perhaps you should be wondering why the U.N. and its investigations are turning up things we were looking for, but weren't securing.  


Quote
Like I said, this stuff has been happening for a long time.  Adopting a NIMBY attitude won't help.  Terrorism is global problem and needs a global effort to minimize it.  We just don't have the resources where we can say at any point "the war is over".  We need to bring in more help.
A global effort like Russia and Syria were working on, selling weapons to Sadaam?  A global effort like France, working to keep Sadaam in power to aid their country, pump up its economy by getting oil on the cheap and screwing its own people by aiding a psychotic dictator?  

I agree, this stuff has been happening for a long time.  Adopting a Not In My Back Yard attitude is EXACTLY what would help, as adopting a "we can't stop it, we can only hope to contain it" attitude will only serve to have the problem dissolve in our minds and start to question why we are fighting terrorism in the first place, as we are right now, and have people concern themselves with what's wrong with the U.S., rather than what the U.S. is doing RIGHT in the world.  

We have weekly reports about how the U.S. is screwing up, no matter who the President, and have little to NO reports about what exactly the U.S. does in the world to help other nations.  If the U.S. is such a widely hated country, then really, shouldn't we start to use the aid we hand out to solve the ills of our own country?  It certainly doesn't seem to matter to the patrickL's or Dexter's or rcchadd's of the world HOW much we do for other countrys.  As long as we've got someone doing a few things they don't agree with, they're willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Terrorism will be a threat to the U.S. as a country.  Having a part of the U.S. hit affects the rest of our country due to the way we are set up.  To have it not affect the "ways of our Nation" would show a callousness the terrorists might agree with.  To have it not affect the "ways of our Nation" would open up any President to accusations of not caring about the security of our country.  If 9/11 had not affected the "ways of our Nation", you'd be clamoring about how Bush didn't care enough about the security of our country, as we'd have surely been hit by terrorists again by this time.
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

danny_galaga

  • Grand high prophet of the holy noodle.
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8492
  • Last login:March 23, 2020, 04:25:58 pm
  • because the mail never stops
    • dans cocktail lounge
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #135 on: November 01, 2004, 12:17:23 am »
that's the question, isn't it?


Yes.  And like everyone else, you dont offer an answer.

Try again, sparky.


How do you move an Iraqi truck, even just one, on roads filled with American troops?

What do you suppose American soldiers would do when they found a lone Iraqi truck driving down thew road, a few miles from Baghdad?


yes, that is the question i'm asking, which you have just asked too. unless you think that the ambushers WALKED to the ambush, surely they would have used some sort of vehicle? yet obviously no one stopped them on their way...

have you ever seen the movie 'buffalo soldiers?'. some food for thought. people are cleverer than you think, just because you or i can't immediately think of how it's done, doesn't mean it can't be. for instance, in the 60's, Israel had an agent in the French Government. High level too. One day he suggested that all blueprints for military equipment should be transferred to microfichse as the paper was taking up space. They thought it wa a smashing idea. What was one of the first things they microfisched? Blueprints for the mirage fighter jet. On the way to the incinerators, all the blueprints for the jet somehow ended up on an israeli steamer which promptly sailed for home. They formed the basis of the Israeli Kfir fighter jet. Big deal, you're thinking. you could just slip the plans up your sleaves or something. NO. They total blueprints for the fighter filled a shipping container. Yet no one noticed it being slipped out. So i guess it mustn't have happened, eh?  ;)

P.S: how did you know i was a sparky?  ;)


ROUGHING UP THE SUSPECT SINCE 1981

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #136 on: November 01, 2004, 12:28:04 am »
P.S: how did you know i was a sparky?  ;)
your browneyelashes gave you away.....long, flowing, but just a bit too much "color"  :-X

The identifying marks of a "sparky"  ;D
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #137 on: November 01, 2004, 03:42:38 am »
...people died because of the actions people like Bush undertake.

The 9/11 attacks were in planning at the end of the Clinton era.  The 1993 WTC bombing was under Clinton's watch.  This isn't a 'people like Bush' phenomenon.
Clinton or Bush might perhaps have prevented the attacks on the WTC, but they are not the REASON for those attacks. The reasons for the attacks were actions taken long before they started. Aggressive actions are the cause of terrorism. Bush junior has set in motion a whole new session of terrorist attacks. You can count on that (even more so than the current surge of attacks in Iraq).

Quote
Quote
You now try to abuse their death to scare people into voting for Bush because apparently he can instill a blind belief in people that he can actually take care of terrorism. Over here he would be institutionalized for claims like that.
Well then, I sure am glad I am not 'over there.'   I will ignore your insult because I have already established you are not living in the real world.
Sorry, you are the one detached from the "world". You seem to belief "the whole world" believed there were WMD in Iraq and that Iraq has something to do with terrorism. I guess you even still do. I will let you in on a little secret. The US is not "the world". Only the US and the UK government believed Bush's claims. The rest of the world did NOT and that's why the UN did not sanction the invasion.

Quote
{edit:  They needn't 'take over' the country to destroy it.  2-3 dirty bombs in major cities could wipe out our economy.}
Again, you just blindly lap up the scare tactics of the Bush administration. Remember the Sarin attacks in Tokyo? This is supposed to be one of the most lethal WMD that Saddam was supposed to have. The scare mongers claim it can kill hundreds of thousands of people in an attack. You know how many people died in those attacks in Tokyo? 12!

Quote
Anyway, this is why I hate debating politics.  I am not having fun here, and all I am learning is that in general the world seems to care more about terrorist's rights than US security.  Yet we always send our troops and money when one of you all gets in trouble.  It is so very incredibly frustrating.
No, you should learn from these threads since the rest of the world has had a lot more experience in dealing with terrorism. If you think military action is going to prevent terrorism than you are sadly mistaken. You will probably only notice this in a couple of years, but by then it's too late.

I have to say I'm not enjoying this very much anymore either. A very bad sentiment is showing. "You people" are really starting to scare me. You are going completely insane. How many more countries need to be "brought to their knees" before you will feel safe? Who was in trouble that needed Iraq to be invaded? The US only fights for it's own interests. Don't blame this Iraq mess on us. We didn't ask for that crap.
This signature is intentionally left blank

danny_galaga

  • Grand high prophet of the holy noodle.
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8492
  • Last login:March 23, 2020, 04:25:58 pm
  • because the mail never stops
    • dans cocktail lounge
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #138 on: November 01, 2004, 04:53:42 am »
P.S: how did you know i was a sparky?  ;)
your browneyelashes gave you away.....long, flowing, but just a bit too much "color"  :-X

The identifying marks of a "sparky"  ;D

damn you're good  ;) . of course a bigger clue would be the crazy afro i sport from being electrocuted so many times...


ROUGHING UP THE SUSPECT SINCE 1981

Dexter

  • Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel. -- Irish, darnit!
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
  • Last login:May 22, 2015, 11:52:02 am
  • "MAKE POVERTY HISTORY......."
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #139 on: November 01, 2004, 05:59:33 am »

This is the reason I started the Sept 11 thread.  People are in complete and utter denial about what happened that day, and about what the US is up against.  

People are also in denial about why it happened. OBLs reasons for attacking America have nothing to do with hating your freedom. They were to protest and draw attention to American interference in the middle-east. The loss of life on 9/11 was terrible, but to slaughter 100,000 Iraqis in the name of the victims as bush does is sickening. The guy has so much power, hopefully if he manages to get elected this time he'll have the decency to call this thing an evangelical crusade against the muslim world, and at least earn some brownie points for being honest.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #140 on: November 01, 2004, 12:23:49 pm »
I will let you in on a little secret. The US is not "the world". Only the US and the UK government believed Bush's claims. The rest of the world did NOT and that's why the UN did not sanction the invasion.

One must then wonder:
Why did UNSCR 1441 pass 15-0?

French, German and Russian intel all supported the intel we and the UK had.  No one questioned the existence of the WMDs - the only question was what to do about them, and THAT question only came up once it became clear Bush was willing to go into Iraq to solve the problem.



No, you should learn from these threads since the rest of the world has had a lot more experience in dealing with terrorism. If you think military action is going to prevent terrorism than you are sadly mistaken.

Interesting.
Does this make Kerry "sadly mistaken"?
And how else to you propose we "deal" with terrorists?



patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #141 on: November 01, 2004, 01:38:28 pm »
I will let you in on a little secret. The US is not "the world". Only the US and the UK government believed Bush's claims. The rest of the world did NOT and that's why the UN did not sanction the invasion.

One must then wonder:
Why did UNSCR 1441 pass 15-0?
That one only said that Saddam didn't allow inspectors in and didn't give a full report on how the WMD were destroyed. It does not say there were WMD in Iraq, just that there was no proof they weren't there. Don't try to pull that nonsens on us again.

Besides, I was talking about the resolution the US tried to get for invading Iraq. That was later and by that time it was already clear that the US had no reliable intel on where theWMD were. Hans Blix had searched and found nothing based on the "solid" tips of the US. After that it was perfectly clear that there were most likely no WMD, or at least that the US had NO intel on where the WMD were even.

Quote
No, you should learn from these threads since the rest of the world has had a lot more experience in dealing with terrorism. If you think military action is going to prevent terrorism than you are sadly mistaken.

Interesting.
Does this make Kerry "sadly mistaken"?
And how else to you propose we "deal" with terrorists?
I already explained how to deal with terrorists, or at least how to try to.
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #142 on: November 01, 2004, 02:01:36 pm »

That one only said that Saddam didn't allow inspectors in and didn't give a full report on how the WMD were destroyed. It does not say there were WMD in Iraq, just that there was no proof they weren't there. Don't try to pull that nonsens on us again.

UNSCR 1441 labels Iraq a threat:
"Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"

And then, there's David Kay:

"KAY: Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here...

...I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD. The German certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.

It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing."

So:
French, German and Russian intel all supported the intel we and the UK had.  No one questioned the existence of the WMDs - the only question was what to do about them, and THAT question only came up once it became clear Bush was willing to go into Iraq to solve the problem.




Besides, I was talking about the resolution the US tried to get for invading Iraq.

You mean the one they could not get, it now seems, because of French/German/Iraq/UN corruption?



Hans Blix had searched and found nothing based on the "solid" tips of the US. After that it was perfectly clear that there were most likely no WMD, or at least that the US had NO intel on where the WMD were even.

And then he said that "Iraq has not made the fundamental decision to disarm".   If thats the case, then how could Iraq have disarmed?






DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #143 on: November 01, 2004, 02:03:10 pm »
No, you should learn from these threads since the rest of the world has had a lot more experience in dealing with terrorism.
It'd be nice to have someone other than left-bent people from the rest of the world to tell us about terrorism, as I'm positive some from your part of the world with a right-bent to them would obviously tell us differently, if not wholeheartedly believe as we do, if not more so.

Has there been someone from outside the U.S. here with conservative views posting and I missed them?

Oh, and I've seen some of the ways foreigners deal with terrorism.  They fight back.  At least the ones who know it's the best way to deal with terrorism.....most of the ones who believe it's best to reason with them either give up everything in the hope for peace, only to have a request for more taken from them, or they get killed.  
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #144 on: November 01, 2004, 02:17:16 pm »
Why is that people seem to forget that Congress declares war and gives the president the power?

You know, there are 435 people in the House and 100 in the Senate that had to vote?

There were what, 3 that voted against it and the rest for it?

Included were Kerry and Edwards?

Come on folks, the president had the backing of the congress and a vast majority of the people in the US.

Screw what France thinks.  
King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #145 on: November 01, 2004, 02:24:10 pm »
That was later and by that time it was already clear that the US had no reliable intel on where theWMD were. Hans Blix had searched and found nothing based on the "solid" tips of the US.
the reliable intel Mr Blix and his organization was giving us regarding the "explosives" they sealed up and dealt with?  Yeah, we gave him solid tips.  From the same intel you seem to think consisted singularly of the CIA, and are unwilling to even consider that of the other countries having the same intel, offering the same position on Sadaam....yet you contiue to insist it's the U.S. and the CIA that gave the intel leading us to decide for war.  

It's probably a good thing we DIDN'T give Mr Blix anything he could find.  After putting a "seal" on it, it would have been left alone for 9 years while they tried to figure out if it was being used for weapons or little Iraqi girls' Easy Bake Ovens.

We get your point.  U.S. = bad  patrick no more want info to make him think....head hurt....need aspirin.....have to lie (down) when making point.  ugum.

Those of us in America are debating in order to make a point about the candidate we support.  You, on the other hand, profess both candidates to be "right wing nutters", which would lead me to believe that you think neither would be fit for President of the U.S. of A.

If that's the case, get an Ohio ballot, and write in Nerf Hoffelmeyer.  Don't worry, even if you're not a citizen, it's like Chicago during the Daly years - you can vote until you die, then, you can vote twice!
« Last Edit: November 01, 2004, 07:39:36 pm by DrewKaree »
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #146 on: November 01, 2004, 04:11:38 pm »
Sad warmongers.
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #147 on: November 01, 2004, 04:19:48 pm »
Sad warmongers.


News:
War is sometimes necessary.
This is one of those times.
You dont have to -like- reality, but you should accept it.

patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #148 on: November 01, 2004, 04:21:25 pm »
Sad warmongers.


News:
War is sometimes necessary.
This is one of those times.
You dont have to -like- reality, but you should accept it.

You sound just like someone else. Here's a quote:

Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leader. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

Just up your alley isn't it?
« Last Edit: November 01, 2004, 04:21:56 pm by patrickl »
This signature is intentionally left blank

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #149 on: November 01, 2004, 04:26:19 pm »
Hmmm.

Goering also ate bread and breathed air.

Does that mean there's something wrong with those things, too?

Must be.  You better cut it out with the breathing, or people will start looking for swastikas in your closet.









patrickl

  • I cannot know for certain which will be tastiest
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
  • Last login:January 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
  • Yo momma llama
    • PocketGalaga
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #150 on: November 01, 2004, 04:41:26 pm »
Hmmm.

Goering also ate bread and breathed air.

Does that mean there's something wrong with those things, too?

Must be.  You better cut it out with the breathing, or people will start looking for swastikas in your closet.









Well it's just that I hear the same rethoric from Bush and his fanatical supporters
This signature is intentionally left blank

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #151 on: November 01, 2004, 07:10:59 pm »
War is sometimes necessary.

I just wish Bush would have picked the correct country. Or at least actually got Osama.
You know....it's the little things.

-mrC

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #152 on: November 01, 2004, 08:05:40 pm »
{image removed out of courtesy because the reality of 911 being proven was too much for a certain board member to handle.}

You're moral superiority is sickening. Get back to me when you can walk on water.

I've seen the videos of human bodies punching through the glass atrium after an 80-story fall. I've seen unreleased photos of body parts strewn across the ashen ground...does that make me qualified enough to understand the true horror of 9/11?

What was too much for me to handle was your crass manipulation of the tragedy for selfish political gain. That'd make you no better than the terrorists...as they seek to manipulate people through fear and emotional turmoil. Think about it and ask yourself what you think you can possibly accomplish by sinking to their level.

Santoro

  • Purveyor of Shiny Arcade Goodness
  • Santoro
  • Trade Count: (+31)
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3035
  • Last login:May 12, 2019, 07:32:34 pm
  • Boycott Quarters!!!
    • ArcadeReplay!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #153 on: November 01, 2004, 08:20:19 pm »
MrC.  I respect your position no matter how much I disagree with it.  I am sorry you chose to go into the mud with it.

You won in a way, because I am done responding to patently false allegations.

May the best candidate win.


DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #154 on: November 01, 2004, 08:41:58 pm »
You're moral superiority is sickening. Get back to me when you can walk on water.

I've seen the videos of human bodies punching through the glass atrium after an 80-story fall. I've seen unreleased photos of body parts strewn across the ashen ground...does that make me qualified enough to understand the true horror of 9/11?
why'd they release the photos to you?  

Quote
What was too much for me to handle was your crass manipulation of the tragedy for selfish political gain. That'd make you no better than the terrorists...as they seek to manipulate people through fear and emotional turmoil. Think about it and ask yourself what you think you can possibly accomplish by sinking to their level.
said the man working to show tragedy in Iraq as being directly and completely Bush's fault - each and every death as if Bush had killed them with his bare hands.  

Talk about walking on water ::)

It must be nice to be as compassionate, fair-minded, and open to new ideas as you are....unless it's a conservative opening his mouth.

To call for a deletion of a thread and then act in a fashion to ensure if it isn't, your own words will accomplish that which you view to be right....were you born that sanctimonious, or are you REALLY that much better than us?
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

Santoro

  • Purveyor of Shiny Arcade Goodness
  • Santoro
  • Trade Count: (+31)
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3035
  • Last login:May 12, 2019, 07:32:34 pm
  • Boycott Quarters!!!
    • ArcadeReplay!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #155 on: November 01, 2004, 08:46:02 pm »
What is really interesting is that he blew up and used the foul language in the Sept 11 Experiences thread that he wanted to see deleted, rather than the thread with the photo that he 'objected' to.

Clearly a transparent ruse by a Kerry Campaign worker to get the September 11 thread removed.

Well done.  >:(
« Last Edit: November 01, 2004, 09:41:39 pm by Santoro »

danny_galaga

  • Grand high prophet of the holy noodle.
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8492
  • Last login:March 23, 2020, 04:25:58 pm
  • because the mail never stops
    • dans cocktail lounge
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #156 on: November 02, 2004, 04:29:07 am »
War is sometimes necessary.

I just wish Bush would have picked the correct country. Or at least actually got Osama.
You know....it's the little things.

-mrC

LMAO

(i've been doing a lot of that lately. thanks guys, you know how to cheer up a lonely celibate (in a non-physical way) no end  :)


ROUGHING UP THE SUSPECT SINCE 1981

Dexter

  • Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel. -- Irish, darnit!
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
  • Last login:May 22, 2015, 11:52:02 am
  • "MAKE POVERTY HISTORY......."
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #157 on: November 02, 2004, 09:39:41 am »
What is really interesting is that he blew up and used the foul language in the Sept 11 Experiences thread that he wanted to see deleted, rather than the thread with the photo that he 'objected' to.

Well done.  >:(

Yeah, that was a good thread too. Cheers  :(

saint

  • turned to the Dark Side
  • Supreme Chancellor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6068
  • Last login:March 27, 2020, 04:12:21 pm
  • I only work in cyberspace...
    • Build Your Own Arcade Controls
--- John St.Clair
     Build Your Own Arcade Controls FAQ
     http://www.arcadecontrols.com/
     Project Arcade 2!
     http://www.projectarcade2.com/
     saint@arcadecontrols.com

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #159 on: November 02, 2004, 02:08:37 pm »
why'd they release the photos to you?

I have two photographer friends in New York, both work for a large magazine (which will remain unnamed/conspiracy theories be damned). I was shown the photos, privately, by them. The magazine will not release these photos as they have been deemed too grotesque. My point being, I don't need to have a poster of WTC jumpers hanging over my bed in order to get my rocks off remembering 9/11. I will never forget. Those in support of the War, and Bush in general (and Santoro specifically), seem to think that just by the mere act of disagreeing with you (ie: Bush SUX! Iraq=No WMD), a person somehow "forgets" about 9/11. How stupid is that?

I'm all for splattering the terrorists all over the sand. But, the latest OBL tape shows how much of a failure Bush really is, so he needs to go. It has NOTHING to do with lack of remembering the horrors of 9/11. In fact, it's exactly WHY BUSH NEEDS TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS FAILURES.

Quote
said the man working to show tragedy in Iraq as being directly and completely Bush's fault - each and every death as if Bush had killed them with his bare hands.
 

Riight. Nice extrapolation though. If I've argued for Bush to held responsible, I've done it with researched arguments based on inductive reasoning, not appeals to pity and prejudicial language (Santoro's post includes two of the main logical fallicies of Motive). Have I ever posted pictures of bloodied, wounded, or dying soldiers? Have I ever posted pictures of massacred Iraqi children? Burned/charred civilians? They exist, as much as you'd like to ignore them.

Didn't think so. You have no point.

Quote
To call for a deletion of a thread and then act in a fashion to ensure if it isn't, your own words will accomplish that which you view to be right....were you born that sanctimonious, or are you REALLY that much better than us?

Santoro wanted strong words...he got them. Don't play the fool. He only cares about peoples 9/11 remembrances insofar as they can be used to paint Bush as some type of avenging angel/war hero.

To answer your final question, given the fact that I don't feel the need to sink to emotional blackmail and debased pandering...yeah, I am really that much better than those who would, and those who'd support them (You/Santoro). Glad we could finally clear that up.

The thread is back anways you big whiners.

mrC
« Last Edit: November 02, 2004, 02:10:16 pm by mr.Curmudgeon »

saint

  • turned to the Dark Side
  • Supreme Chancellor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6068
  • Last login:March 27, 2020, 04:12:21 pm
  • I only work in cyberspace...
    • Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #160 on: November 02, 2004, 03:22:28 pm »
Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules


To answer your final question, given the fact that I don't feel the need to sink to emotional blackmail and debased pandering...yeah, I am really that much better than those who would, and those who'd support them (You/Santoro). Glad we could finally clear that up.

The thread is back anways you big whiners.

mrC
--- John St.Clair
     Build Your Own Arcade Controls FAQ
     http://www.arcadecontrols.com/
     Project Arcade 2!
     http://www.projectarcade2.com/
     saint@arcadecontrols.com

GGKoul

  • Cheesecake Apprentice
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4723
  • Last login:July 23, 2019, 05:47:30 pm
  • I was once a big man!! -4700 posts later...
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #161 on: November 02, 2004, 03:26:32 pm »
Message board rules:
Rules?  We don't need no steeenkin rules!  Well, maybe one.  Be nice to each other.  We're serious about this one.  Disagree, debate, argue at will - but please be respectful.  Messages that are antagonistic or contain profanity will likely be deleted, and repeat offenders banned from posting.  Oh, also - I do not mind the occasional emulation related or other off-topic post.  This is an online community as well as a discussion forum after all.  However, please do bear in mind the intent of the board is to discuss arcade controls and related topics.

NO ROM REQUESTS

Thanks!

--- saint

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #162 on: November 02, 2004, 04:00:27 pm »
Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules


To answer your final question, given the fact that I don't feel the need to sink to emotional blackmail and debased pandering...yeah, I am really that much better than those who would, and those who'd support them (You/Santoro). Glad we could finally clear that up.

The thread is back anways you big whiners.

mrC
I would consider my post antagonistic in nature.  My bad, and I am considering myself warned.  

MrC, we can make up after today.  :-*  

Even if Kerry wins.  

If Bush wins, naturally I'd be extra nice to you, kinda like killing you with insincere kindness, but either way, your passion is encouraging - people care! - although you encourage far more riff-raff than I care to hear from ;)
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #163 on: November 02, 2004, 04:02:01 pm »
Hey Saint, I was listening to Lewis Black today....do you happen to be a fan of his work?  You strike me as exactly how he was portraying himself.....can't remember the CD, but it was the one where he is in Minnesota.
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

Santoro

  • Purveyor of Shiny Arcade Goodness
  • Santoro
  • Trade Count: (+31)
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3035
  • Last login:May 12, 2019, 07:32:34 pm
  • Boycott Quarters!!!
    • ArcadeReplay!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #164 on: November 02, 2004, 04:14:24 pm »
I LOVE Lewis Black.  He could read the weather forcast and I would still laugh because of his anger shtick.


DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #165 on: November 02, 2004, 05:14:24 pm »
Yeah, I just picked up the Minnesota concert (current politics/Iraq) one this past weekend and was listening to it today....he seriously made me think of saint!

I also picked up Ron White's CD - that M'er F'er almost caused me an accident, I was laughing so hard!

My buddy in NC - favorite line from The White Album (or is it The Black Album?) once he found out I was from WI - "30-some-odd inches of snow fell, or as you here in WI call it a dusting..."  He honest to Rudy pissed his pants when we heard that the first time - he's dying of laughter, I'm sitting there going "he nailed that one pretty good!"
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

saint

  • turned to the Dark Side
  • Supreme Chancellor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6068
  • Last login:March 27, 2020, 04:12:21 pm
  • I only work in cyberspace...
    • Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #166 on: November 02, 2004, 05:18:53 pm »
Never heard of him :) Send me a link?

Hey Saint, I was listening to Lewis Black today....do you happen to be a fan of his work?  You strike me as exactly how he was portraying himself.....can't remember the CD, but it was the one where he is in Minnesota.
--- John St.Clair
     Build Your Own Arcade Controls FAQ
     http://www.arcadecontrols.com/
     Project Arcade 2!
     http://www.projectarcade2.com/
     saint@arcadecontrols.com

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:April 06, 2020, 08:12:34 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #167 on: November 02, 2004, 05:47:22 pm »
« Last Edit: November 02, 2004, 07:19:03 pm by DrewKaree »
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

danny_galaga

  • Grand high prophet of the holy noodle.
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8492
  • Last login:March 23, 2020, 04:25:58 pm
  • because the mail never stops
    • dans cocktail lounge
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #168 on: November 02, 2004, 07:00:53 pm »
goddamit, i missed ANOTHER ebay auction while reading this forum  >:(


ROUGHING UP THE SUSPECT SINCE 1981

Santoro

  • Purveyor of Shiny Arcade Goodness
  • Santoro
  • Trade Count: (+31)
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3035
  • Last login:May 12, 2019, 07:32:34 pm
  • Boycott Quarters!!!
    • ArcadeReplay!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #169 on: November 03, 2004, 09:18:44 am »
Never heard of him :) Send me a link?
http://www.lewisblack.net/


I can't get to that. Might be my browser.

If you have XM radio they play him on XM Comedy XL quite a bit.  He has this routine about Starbucks being on overy corner, it gets me roaring every time.  

Don't judge him by his Daily Show appearances, his uncensored stand-up is just great.

SeaMonkey

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 282
  • Last login:March 21, 2014, 02:57:17 pm
  • "Wizard has shot the food! Ehrrummiehrrr"
    • Ultimate Battles!
Re:Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
« Reply #170 on: November 03, 2004, 05:32:33 pm »
Too bad we didn't have anyone guarding it.  :-\

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/

"At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity."


WTF?!?

Saddam had banned explosives?!?
Do the French know about this?