Main > Everything Else
Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: patrickl on October 27, 2004, 02:46:52 pm ---Our troops were trained for months on how to deal with the Iraqi's.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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 ;)
TA Pilot:
"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.
Crazy Cooter:
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:
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:
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.