380 tons of high explosives missing in Iraq, for over a year.
 

Ooh, THAT'S where you got all the materials to kill our troops with IED's etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/in...rtner=homepage
also Here

I tend to agree. I wonder exactly how many lives were lost because we failed to do something as basic as secure these explosives?
How can some on here CONTINUE to say that Bush is stronger on National Security? This is the dictionary definition of incompetent.

The only thing that really stinks about this story is the timing :D

Very old info, and apparently the explosives were gone before the US forces even got there. Just the NYT's helping out their candidate.

Hmm, the second article described them as thus:
Seems hard to move something "Massive" more quickly than we could secure them.

Also:
Why would McClellan blame the loss on the interim Iraqi Government if everything was "gone before the US forces even got there."?

I've become so suspicious when I read any article, Pro Kerry Pro Bush, or against Bush or Kerry as being politically motivated to influence the elections. I use to think other countries had biased media but we do not. Now I'm not so sure. November 2nd is not going to be here soon enough!!

So if you do something incredibly stupid, as long as you cover it up for months, the action can be flat out dismissed when it does finally become public?

Nice.

Is this balanced perspective you're sharing with us? Or a lame defense of your candidate?

As old of info as it is, let's see a raise of hands of who knew about it before I posted it?

They're always out to get ya, it seems. That *must* be what it is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/in...=all&position=

It's just now in the news because the Iraqi government just now warned the US and the IAEA about the missing explosives. According to the article, the missing explosives would fill almost 40 large trucks, and are well suited to insurgent and paramilitary activities. They pack a massive punch, but are highly stable (meaning they won't go off if jarred or struck), and require blasting caps to detonate. The IAEA was keeping tabs on them because explosives like the ones lost can be used to detonate nuclear weapons.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0041025-1.html
I THOUGHT the priority was to secure any and all weapons....

That is what he told us....

So, the price of making the oil fields a priority rather than unsecured stashes of weapons around the nation is this:

http://www.bamberg.army.mil/webimage/HMMWV-IED-2.gif
http://www.blackfive.net/photos/the_...after_ied1.jpg

So many american soldiers, civilians and current/hopeful Iraqi security forces dead or wounded.

For oil.
Is the Bush admin trying to prove their oppositions point now?

It is funny that I found this thread today. I am in Croatia right now and I keep a journal on anything I feel like writing about. It just so happens that I wrote about this story on page 96. It is very personal and opionated but I will paste it here anyhow for those of you who care to read it.

The big story on CNN today is that 380 tons of military grade explosives are missing from depots in Iraq. The UN was aware of the existence of these explosives, but failed to secure them after the war. It is being reported that Bush said he doesn’t have enough troops in Iraq to guard that volume of explosives. Now, the US and UN are concerned that the explosives ‘may’ fall into the ‘wrong hands.’ (Read, the insurgency and terrorists.)

First of all, who the hell else would want 380 tons of C4 and other high grade explosives? Hint, it’s not Allowah the neighborhood butcher. Regardless of who took the explosives, I feel very confident that they have made there way into the ‘wrong hands.’ Another thing, we have somewhere around 130,000 troops in Iraq. How many military objectives are more important than securing 380 tons of explosives from ‘the wrong hands?’ George Bush, are you fucking serious right now? We don’t have enough troops to guard something like that? What are we, French? I can’t believe we were so sloppy. If it wasn’t for Kerry’s liberal domestic policies, I may support that sorry piece of shit. Iraq is a complete mess. Then again, my source on this matter is CNN international which should be renamed the European Socialist News for the sake of accuracy. Hopefully there will be more to this story other than the car bombs that will inevitably explode thanks to these unguarded explosives.

Well, those are my feelings on the issue, completely unabridged. I hope I haven't ruffled any feathers. They say opions are like belly buttons, everyone has one.

-Dostoevsky

Thanks for that Dostoevsky. It's nice to get some backup from someone who is in that region and from the "other side".

Though I gotta say it baffles me how anyone who reads this can still vote Bush. How anyone who reads this can still think that Kerry can't do a better job. I could do a better job using a Magic 8 Ball.

Inexcusable not to secure any number of high priority sites post-invasion. I can continue to vote Bush because the alternative will be horrendous for the war on terror and send the absolute worst message to terrorists, our troops, and our allies.

Very old info?

Actually, the story only broke a couple of days ago. US Intelligence agencies prevented the information from being released ealier.

Condeleeza Rich herself was only informed 10 days ago.

Very old?!!


http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArti...toryID=6602807
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/me...aq.explosives/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3950493.stm


Mr Mephisto

Good LORD you have an amazingly low opinion of Senator Kerry if you think this bullshit is the lesser of two evils.

What would it take for you to at the very least choose to vote for a third party?

you know what...I really really want to know what this message we will send by voting Kerry into office is...and who it is so bad..seriously. someone tell me what apocolyptic disaster will occur the minute Kerry takes office?

The Army Corps of Engineers have estimated that Saddam had 600 THOUSAND tons of weaponry, based on what they have found. Only 110 thousand tons have been destroyed. Could we really have stopped the looters from getting some of that?

The 380 tons of high explosives in question had been sealed by the IAEA and there whereabouts were well known so, yes, preventing this was very possible.

This stash was already secured. It would have taken troops, but it could be done. For 380 tons of extremely high grade explosives, that were secure, we should have been able to plan for that.

You don't start a war with the intention to secure all the weapons they have to prevent them from being used by terrorists, and not have a plan to actually secure all the weapons That's called stupid, short sighted, incompetent and pretty much derelict of duty.
Those weapons were neutralized and accounted for by the international community. Now they are... God knows where....

Then this brings me back to my original question: What does Bush have to do with this? Your military would be just as incompetent under any President.

Heh, this is kind of interesting. When 380 tons of explosives goes missing from a cache in Iraq, it MUST have made its way into the hands of terrorists or the resistance. But when the WMDs are unaccounted for, Saddam MUST have destroyed them back in '91. (This, by the way, is just mindless sarcastic commentary.)

No, the military wouldn't. There is plenty of evidence of Bush not listening to the military commanders, both at home and on the field. He chose to make the decisions, as commander in chief, that go counter to those under him.

To your second part: Who else would have the 380 tons of explosives, stolen from a warzone?

and: I believe that the senate inquiries handled that. There were no weapons, or programs. Saddam had hopes of building one some day when the sanctions were all gone, but as of our invasion he had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. His lack of proof that he had weapons were intended as a smokescreen to make himself look dangerous to Iraq's enemy, Iran. If Iran knew that they were relatively defenseless, nothing would have stopped Iran from overrunning Iraq and deposing, and killing Saddam.

Have you not been paying attention?

Well jconnolly, I think you bring up a very valid point.

This was a military fuck up, not an Administration fuck-up.

Having said that, where does the buck stop again? :)


Mr Mephisto

I would say that it's a monsterous 'Whoops' on all parts!

But does he make battlefield decisions and troop deployments?

What about all the weapons documented from after the Gulf War, before he kicked out the inspectors? You know, the ones that all those sanctions were put in place to make him come out with, and prove he destroyed them, but refused to? He has nothing NOW, and that's exactly my point. Did he pour them across the sands? Did he sell them? Inquiring minds want to know!

Kerry wants to "Unify" the country. He doesn't believe in the whole "Red State-Blue State" dichotomy. His solution: Remove all red and blue from the American flag.

/sings the WWII classic "I surrender, dear...."

For a completely on-topic post: This stuff is cheaply available on the world market, and Iraq's borders are beyond pourous. What's the hubbub....bub?

Funny thought...how does our super ace military miss monitoring the removal of 300 tons of ordinance like this...that was one keen slight of hand! Bush probably had his Haliburton buddies "truck it" to Saudi Arabia with a military escort to give it to the royal families as a gift. Maybe a little Ramadan present.

The timing of this news release is amazing. Bet we have an Orange or Red Alert or "Intel" on Major Targets ala BushCo within the next few days. In time for Nov. 2nd.

I don't think this is an issue of military competence. The military is quite good at doing what they're trained to do, given adequate paramaters to act within. In fact, this failure and others had a lot to do with the decisions that President Bush made going in. You see, Rumsfeld thought it would be neat to knock over Iraq with only two divisions. It would scare a lot of people, and it worked; the army was able to do the job.

They started having problems once they got there. 150,000 troops are not enough to secure Iraq. They had to bring in guard and reserve units. Inevitably, those units and others wound up doing jobs that they weren't trained or prepared for. Just look at Abu Ghraib. Not only did they have troops doing a job they weren't prepared for, they failed to make sure our troops understood the geneva conventions, and they promoted a culture of intolerance and dehumanization towards the Iraqis. When you believe someone is evil, it's easy to do bad things to them.

We could have a whole other thread rehashing that fiasco, but I think it's relevant here, as this missing weapons cache is just another example of Bush's failed leadership in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/in...n&pagewanted=2

(it's a good article, and a worthwhile read, if a bit long)

The civilian and military leadership didn't even prepare for an insurgency. They figured everything would go quite well, and we wouldn't have problems. You see, if we talked about things going badly, that might undermine our case for war. Better preparation might have prevented 40 truckloads of explosives from being "liberated" from their bunker to arm our enemies. The IAEA knew where the stuff was. Why? Because RDX can be used to detonate nuclear weapons.

760,000 pounds of extremely high grade military explosives. The shit ain't firecrackers, and nobody knows where it is, or how many Americans have died because of it.

I hope they kept better track of it than the bunker full of chemical munitions (AKA WMDs) they found in Iraq but still haven't opened...

Well, now that it's coming out that the sites were looted over 18 months ago, BEFORE US troops were on the ground in Iraq, I wonder how Bush was supposed to protect those sites? Hmmmm???? :crazy:

I think I speak for all of us when I say: What?

They found a sealed bunker-full of WMDs in Iraq, but haven't opened it. They were declared to the UN but not destroyed by Saddam. It was in the Duelfer report, found here: http://www.foia.cia.gov/duelfer/Iraqs_WMD_Vol3.pdf

Look on page 78, where it says
Apparently they were declared to UN inspectors, who sealed the bunkers, and we just haven't gotten around to unsealing them.

Could we get a link to that story?

Given that the initial evidence pointed to the disappearance of the explosives following the invasion, is your "crazy" emoticon really necessary (man, I hate emoticons...the occasional smiley is a necessary evil to denote humor but after that it just gets silly)?

It's on Drudge, quoting a NBCnews piece.

Not sure where dawsig got his contradictive info.

Drudge says that "NBCNEWS" reporters were embedded with a unit that visited the looted site on April 10, 2003. Now, he gives no supporting names, details or any other facts, so this could disappear like so many other Drudge claims. As the scumbag likes to say, developing....

Indeed. He always cries foul when the "liberal" media does something he doesn't like, but he's never been above using even worse forms of deception, truth blurring, and innuendo for his own purposes.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc..._24.php#003797

Double post, but someone smarter than me has followed up on this. He doesn't seem to know which way the story goes, but the dispute is over a timing issue In late March/Early April 03. I'll give you the post in its entirety:

Yawn, another liberal lie bites the dust. It grows tiresome.

(Oh and BTW check the latest polls on who the military supports, they are terrified of Kerry)

I can only guess what tomorrow brings. Today 380 tons goes missing from its place of origin in Iraq but yesterday, the rage in the media was that Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia were supplying terrorists with the same shit. I guess those countries, especially Syria and Iran can breathe easier for another day before Bush decides to bomb them into oblivion too. At least that's what I read on them there "rumors on the internets."

I wonder why. ;) How many more times does he have to betray them before they realize he is just looking out for their best interests??? :D

Thanks for posting the DrudgeReport.com information. I didn't know how to view it myself.

And thanks for your consistent balance in judging information. Apparently, Drudge is telling us that NBC will tell us that NBC was wrong when it quoted a Pentagon official. Ergo, the liberals are lying.

Interesting.
I'll get right on that as soon as I figure out how it is related to the topic.

The NY Times proves their bias by not reporting the timeframe of the weapons. These explosives were gone when our troops arrived.

Kerry and Edwards jumped all over this today aligning them on the wrong side of a false argument. Poor political move, it amplifies the Bush administration's foresight when it removes a dangerous dictator.

Ummm, the NY Times did post a timeline, one different than the timeline presented in the Drudge story. We have competing stories here.

5 :p

You know one thing they don't talk about much is that the military tends to be filled with more Republicans than Democrats. If Kerry wins we may damn well need a draft as less men would be willing to sign up to serve under Kerry (you remember how they loved Clinton). Clinton kept me from joining in 93 (I was told by friends that things were getting bad, and they got worse, but I still regret that I didn't join up).

Let's see which one wins. I suppose they are both right...since they were missing a few days ago...just as missing as they were 18 months ago. They are just as missing as they used to be.

Hey, you never know, they could have returned them just yesterday....

Reminds me of kids looking for something and one of says 'THERE IT ....................isn't'.

Again you are just ignoring everything that is in the thread before you post. Including that:
The Interim Iraqi Government already said the materials went missing AFTER Baghdad fell
link
And that makes it our responsibility, as we were holding the potato.

Yes, the Bush administration is ultimately responsible.

This is a military fuck up. Generals are delegated authority to manage their troops to fulfill the current doctrine as described by the Commander-In-Chief. If they fail to guard a huge stockpile of explosives, then they have failed their mission.

IMO - If Kerry cannot seperate the difference, he does not need to be my Commander-In-Chief.

Holding President Bush personally responsible for this military fuck-up is only done at a very shallow level.

Prediction, If he wins, Kerry will eat these ill thought out words.

Boo -

Assuming it is accurate that the explosives were looted post-April 9th, it is HIGHLY likely that this is a Department of Defense fuckup, which makes it a Bush administration fuckup. Not a military fuckup.

Scott McCellan has gone on record stating that there was a priority to protect the oil fields and as such there were not enough troops to protect other areas. This type of decision comes from civilian commanders, not military officers. No military officer in their right mind is going to leave an unsecured explosives depot in order to protect an oil field, particularly during combat operations, without having been issued a directive from the DoD which overrode their common sense.

For those saying "why didn't they post guards over this stuff?", I'd like to point out that the CIA WMD report says there's more than six hundred thousand TONS of ordnance over there. Let's say we detailed one soldier to guard each ton of ordinance. That's 600,000 soldiers, more than we invaded with in Desert Storm, and around 4 times the number of soldiers we invaded with this time.

And yet, no other explosives of this type or severity are known to be missing. This site was "well known", according to the reports.

Additionally, there is a significant difference between ordnance and explosives. You, of all people, would assuredly know that.

So you're saying that you didn't have enough troops because Bush didn't plan the invasion well enough in advance? For once, we agree.

Ordnance=shells filled with explosives.

Not to get into splitting semantic hairs here, but from my perspective, ordnance, munitions, and explosives are generally seen as interchangeable terms. It's like the difference between "clip" and "magazine". If you want to split hairs, you can differentiate between them, but generally it's not necessary to do so.

Nope, what I'm saying is that it would have been a practical impossibility (and a wasted effort) to place all of the stuff there under armed guard.

Why is it a waste of effort to make sure that high explosives are secure and are not going to be used against your own troops? I don't see that as a waste of effort at all.

Ordnance = all ammunition, explosives, pyro-technics, flares, smoke flares, et. al.

So, when you state that there is/was 600,000 tons of ordnance - they (whoever "they" are) are not referring to explosives specifically.

Regardless, Al Qa Qaa was a high profile site with highly important explosives that could be used for nuclear triggering. Under (essentially) no circumstances would anyone suggest that it would be acceptable to leave this site unguarded.

Why invade then? If you can't do the JOB then stay the hell home. This particular, very large, stash of explosives was deemed so important the IAEA was constantly monitoring it. You'd think that would qualify it for immediate attention.

But no, the immediate attention was given to the oil fields.

Like I posted on page one, from the official WH website.
MAYBE if we had put the priority on securing all the weapons rather then securing oil fields those explosives would be still in our possession.

On April 4, 2003 an AP embedded reporter with the U.S. 3rd ID, filed this report:
This is the same site....it will be difficult for Bushco to contradict a April 4, 2003 Centcom update published on the State Department's own website:
This report confirms that U.S. troops controlled the area before the explosives were looted!

Let's remember here that looting was initially encouraged by U.S. forces. It was seen as evidence of the disintigration of S. Hussein's Iraqi army, and perhaps it was. This was top-down policy delivered from the Department of Defense, President Bush's DoD. Now however, 1100+ U.S. casualties later, these policies are exposed as being extremely naieve.

I've read interviews with Fallujah insurgents that corroborate this story. There were U.S. forces guarding many Iraqi weapons depots but when looters came they were asked if they were "ali baba" and then waved through, with all the weapons they could carry. These are the same people killing Americans and the new Iraqi police and military.

:lol: Pardon me if I don't take the word of a Fallujah insurgent interviewed in an unknown source as proof of US policy failure.

CNN is now running the story too, for those who don't like Drudge.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/me...aq.explosives/

Same shit different day eh?

Hmm, believe the embedded news crews or the IAEA and Interim Iraqi Government....
Well, first we would need some information coming from those two organizations that backup the claim that the explosives were still there... Where to find it?
Do you think, Ustwo, if I read through this thread from the beginning I may find some evidence of that? I dunno, it's been so long since I started this thread.

Keep grasping.

okay then how about the corpses of 1100 dead Americans? I suppose that means nothing to you either. :rolleyes:

the source was Harper's magazine in case you actually cared and weren't just being an insincere thoroughly contemptible, detestable person.

I'm fairly knowledgable of Harper's factchecking process, in case you want to quibble over that too.

If by grasping you mean point to the wealth of information in this thread that counters your CBS stories. A news organization by the way, that you would outright dismiss as being a Democrat tool if their reporting was the other way around. Then yes, I am grasping.

Also note that this does not make even the front page of cnn.com. However yesterday the erroneous story of missing explosives was front and center.

The media shows they are trying to oust Bush when they do things like this.

Maybe because CBS's accounts, which are the basis for the CNN article, are highly inconclusive.
CBS journalists were embedded with troops, but they weren't embedded with ALL the troops. So the stuff was gone before they got there. Who is to say they got there first?
The direct contradiction between CBS and the IAEA + Interim Govt make the CBS claim seem much less like the whole truth.

As such it wouldn't really be "Front Page Worthy."

Or is it just not front page worthy because it doesn't make Bush look bad?

No, for the reasons I already said. Until it gets the kind of believability and stature the IAEA and Interim govt have, it's not much of a story. It needs some serious developing before it should be responsibily pushed.

And by the way, it still makes Bush look bad. It still exposes how he was completely unprepared and had his priorities elsewhere (on oil rather than securing weapons).

Actually it was front page for many hours yesterday. More than the story about the missing weapons even..

If it was, then I didn't see it. On their tv coverage it was all about missing weapons. No mention on the time frame.

In other news...there is a big domestic October Surprise that is going to break open in the next few days. The Bush administration has lost a river that flows through Arizona, leaving a very grand canyon. How do you lose a river? Poor environment policies and Halliburton, thats how.

And don't forget the millions of leaves, stripped of their greenity by the Bush environment left to turn yellow and red before wilting and falling to the ground leaving out precious grasses nothing but a graveyard whose only remaining purpose is to remind us of the disasterous policies of GWB.

The NY Times and CBS News will offer a story a day until the election to try to decide things for you. I know who wants Bush to win and what they will to help the cause. Are there no Kerry supporters who acknowledge the obvious--that their friends in big media have compromised their ethics--even if for a good cause?

Have no fear aliali, John Kerry has a plan for this. It is on JohnKerry.com

Friends, we're experiencing what it must have been like to try to stay
informed if you were living in old Soviet Russia. Bushco seems desperate to
spin the missing explosives story out of it's realm of responsibility.......

drudgereport.com led with a large lettered link at the top of the web pages
yesterday that an NBC news reporter embedded with U.S. invasion forces
has reported that the explosives were "already gone when U.S. troops arrives
at al qaqaa on April 10, 2003. CNN picked up the story and displsyed it as it's
headline story on it's web site last night until 8:00 AM EST today. My skepticism
increased when I observed that, outside of a video report of this story, there
was nothing on MSNBC's website comparable to CNN's feature.

My opinion is that CNN was involved in a transparent effort to aid the Bush
administration in minimizing the fallout from the explosives story by featuring
an NBC reporter's claim that Bushco did not even have an opportunity to
secure the explosives in the first place, at the same time NBC news did not
have enough confidence that the story was signifigant enough to lead with.

The main weakness in the story below is that I have posted three stories
above, including one from the state department's own website that establish
that U.S. troops were at the El Qa Qaa with the 3rd Infantry Division on
April 4, 2003, 6 days before the NBC reporter Lai Ling, embedded with the
101st Airborne division arrived there.
<a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20030404-1742-war-chemicalfinds.html">http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20030404-1742-war-chemicalfinds.html</a>
<a href=" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83252,00.html"> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83252,00.html</a>
<a href="http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/2003/0404/epf504.htm">http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/2003/0404/epf504.htm</a>
The drudgereport.com emphasis on this story yesterday and the CNN
followup "major headline" treatment seems to reveal a transparent CNN
effort to run a damage contol operation for Bush and his campaign. Much
information at these links below to further strenghten this accusation:
<a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_24.php#003804">http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_24.php#003804</a>
<a href="http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Al_Qaqaa_Weapons_Cache">http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Al_Qaqaa_Weapons_Cache</a>

so basicly it sounds like the April 10'th article did not realize that US troops had already passed through the area, and therefore speculated that the explosives were raided before the US troops arrived. embedded journalism at it's finest..

If you watched CNN last night, they had stories about missing explosives all night. And now you say CNN is on Bush's side? Sure. Makes total sense. Bush hasn't gotten too many breaks from the media at all, maybe he is due one.

This story will probably loose cred and help Bush. It reminds people of the explosives Iraq had and the danger they posed.

Heh. Good point. The people crying "Bush screwed up, letting this stuff fall into the hands of potential terrorists" are the same people who cried "Saddam is not a threat!" when Saddam obviously had stuff that terrorists wanted to get their hands on...

CNN headlined this misleading story last night, and into this morning.
It is misleading because it gives the impression that the 101st Airborne troops
were the first on the scene, when there are credible reports that 3rd Infantry
Division troops were at the same location 5 days earlier, on April 4, 2003.
It is misleading because it gives the impression that the 101st Airborne were
searching the El Qaqaa complex for weapons and that they confirmed that
the 380 tons of high explosives were already missing from the site. The fact
is that the 101st Airborne troops and the NBC imbedded reporter merely
stopped at El Qaqaa to camp overnight on their way to occupy Baghdad.
CNN did not get their facts straight and they provided convenient "cover"
for the Bush Disinfostration!
CNN's manipulation of an NBC reporters April 10, 2003 report from the war
in Iraq facilitated an effort to push the blame for not securing the 380 tons
of explosives away from the Bush administration. Now the Drudge, CNN, RNC
disinformation campaign to turn a Bushco failure into a smear on the Kerry
campaign is exposed for what it is.......pathetic, desperate, untrue, propaganda:

Let me report two things I heard yesterday.


1) A UN Weapons Inspector (don't think it was Hans Blix, but another American) who basically said "Even IF they were gone when US forces got there, and this is as yet unconfirmed, then it's worse. It means these guys didn't even notice!" [paraphrased]

2) A clarification stating that the NBC team didn't say "there were no explosives" but only "they didn't see them". Quite a different thing.


Looking for references now.


Mr Mephisto

Who knows....maybe they had other priorities...like fighting the frigging WAR.

Think again, daswig....Bushco and the so called "liberal media", RNC "shill", CNN
caught in a pathetic attempt to rescue Bush. (No wonder that the NY Times did
not even bother to address this Bushco propaganda in today's followup to the
"missing 380 tons of high explosives" story!)

Who?

The reporters? The troops actually there on the spot?

"Sargent Jones!! Don't open that door! We've got some towel heads to kill! All aboard..."

Yeah, right.


Mr Mephisto

That statement made me laugh out loud! CNN running damage control for bush? Thats one of the funniest things I've ever heard;)

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but we're talking about a complex with over a thousand bunkers, right? We're talking about thousands of tons of explosive ordnance, right? We're talking about front-line troops whose objective was to confront and kill or force the capitulation of the Iraqi Army, right? We're NOT talking about EOD personnel, right? So do you really think it would be a good idea for them to go poking around in such a facility?

It's all a matter of tasking.

Do I think it would be a good idea to go "poking around"?

Well, when the whole reason for the war was to find and destroy WMDs, you're damn RIGHT I think you should go poking around.

When the IAEA specifically tells you that there are weapons there, you're damn RIGHT I think you shoud go poking around.

When there is general insurgency in the country and hundreds of US personnel are being killed by bombs, you're damn RIGHT I think youd should go poking around.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.


Too few men? It would have taken a platoon to guard the facility and dissuade looting.


Mr Mephisto

ROTFLMAO!!! Yessir, let's send the 11-Bravos in to deal with poking enemy explosives with sharp pointy sticks, instead of sending EOD. THAT'LL work... :)

I'm restraining myself from saying something I shouldn't.

You missed the point, or deliberately misunderstood, or simply didn't read what I said.

I stated that the facility should have been investigated.

I then also stated that it would have only taken a single platoon to dissuade looting.

Two seperate assertions.

What message does it give when US Forces guard the Oil Ministry but not military facilities?


Mr Mephisto

Is it funny that Kerry and his supporters are mad that the weapons dissapeared before we even got there. I guess it is the wrong war in the wrong place and we got there two weeks late

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I don't think it's fair to blame Bush for this. I think it was a military planning mistake. I suppose you could argue that Bush is responsible due to the complete lack of any real planning, but that's a bit of a jump. If more troops were available, this might have been averted.

But it certainly was a screw-up and if anyone is directly responsible it was the miliary commanders on the ground.

Just my opinion.


Mr Mephisto

People, these were known weapons sealed by the IAEA. Trying to mix this up with the "WMD" question is just plain silly.

There is little to no evidence that even suggests that the explosives disappeared before the U.S. arrived.

The "apocolyptic" message is that the US will go back to the failed policy of turning the other cheek it has held to for the last 30 years in the face of growing terrorist attacks against our embassies, our citizens, and our soldiers. State sponsors of terrorism won't shirk from averting their eyes to newly formed terrorist training camps springing up within their borders while their bank accounts grow.

Additionally that message will be an invitation for the opposition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to multiply their attacks tenfold to drive the US out sooner since Kerry's entire goal is to get people home as soon as possible. The last thing his political career can handle is continued or increased deaths in those two countries.

I absolutely believe the securing of Iraq could have been handled far better, but to think that every military commander in the theatre would have ignored an arms stash as well known as this one is "bullshit" of the highest order.

I have a horrendously low opinion of Kerry because he has displayed zero integrity throughout this campaign. Whenever it was politically expedient for him to be the "antiwar" candidate he pretended to be Dean. When he needed to be a "hawk" he was for the removal of Saddam Hussein and played the military hero card. He (and you) can spin his positions all you like but his vote to give the President the authority to go to war while now claiming it was only to show the UN and Hussein a united front is as much bullshit as you seem to think Bush is full of. When do you think it is more important to show a united front? When posturing with the UN and Hussein or when fighting a war? I choose the latter and I fully believe that the opposition to the war only serves to encourage and embolden those fighting against our soldiers. Kerry still doesn't understand that despite the hundreds of Vietnam Veterans who have tried to communicate that to him.

As far as voting for a third party candidate, until there is one that even comes close to matching my opinions I will continue to support one of the two candidates from the Republican or Democratic parties.

And there is little to no evidence to say that they were there after the invasion had been completed.

For me, Kerry would have to exit the race, preferably to give up his senate seat and stand trial for providing aid and comfort to the government of North Vietnam during a time when the United States was at war with North Vietnam.

Kerry=Arnold, at least in my book

Democrats had a wide variety of candidates that they could have nominated. many of them I would have voted for (not Sharpton or Clarke or Braun(sp) or Kucinich ) They chose Kerry.

Are you saying that Bush Has Generals in charge that are not capable of defending this country? I hope not or we are all in trouble. A little education on your part will help you seperate the difference as to what is going on... :thumbsup:


What is for lunch tomorrow? :)

I'm probably being dense here, but who is Arnold?

Doesn't it seem just a little overblown to accuse Kerry of treason? We've sparred over this before, but why wasn't he prosecuted at the time when he was in the sights of the Nixon White House? You may not think very highly of war protesters, but these claims that he gave "aid and comfort" to the enemy seem like a stretch.

I'm sure that most here would agree that G W is far from the best Republican candidate that could have been fielded. Our democratic process is a strange beast.

I don't think that any president is going to ignore Al Qaeda again, as earlier presidents and, initially, this administation, did. Kerry has called for more troops in Iraq which doesn't exactly imply weakness in that arena. As for Afghanistan, Bush has definitely given priority to Iraq. They did have elections but things are far from stable there (hopefully improving, though).

As for the state sponsors of terrorism angle, does it seem that likely that our military is capable of doing much else as we are tied up with the occupation of Iraq?

Arnold was a real-life no-shit American war hero. He saved our nation at Saratoga. He then tried to surrender West Point, a vital asset in the war and a place he commanded, to the British because he was dissatisfied with his treatment by the Continental Congress. He's perhaps the most vilified American traitor in our history.

Benedict Arnold I believe


Mr Mephisto