Main > Everything Else
Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
TA Pilot:
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:
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.
patrickl:
--- Quote from: TA Pilot 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?
--- End quote ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
patrickl:
--- Quote from: fredster on October 27, 2004, 03:18:07 pm ---No one seems to have any 'proof' these weapons were there.
--- End quote ---
well there is proof they were there
--- Quote ---We took care of the problem.
--- End quote ---
and created a much bigger one
TA Pilot:
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.