Main > Everything Else
Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
Crazy Cooter:
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:
the "Internets"
HAHAHA! I loved that. I guess that's one thing he hasn't been accused of... being computer literate. ;)
mr.Curmudgeon:
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
TA Pilot:
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:
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. ;)