Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq

[fredster]

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.

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.

[patrickl]

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.

[Crazy Cooter]

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]

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?

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.

[TA Pilot]

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]

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]

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]

 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.

[TA Pilot]

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]

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.

[DrewKaree]

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.

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

[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.

[TA Pilot]

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.

[TA Pilot]

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 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.

[TA Pilot]

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]

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)

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.
 

[TA Pilot]

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.
 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

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]

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]

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*....

[TA Pilot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

No no no no no.

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

Also,

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]

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]

...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.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

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

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

[mr.Curmudgeon]

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]

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.