380 tons stolen *BEFORE* troops arrived

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison

It was a big deal and no stolen high explosives were used to do that.

So it's not a big deal to lose 370 tons of explosives in a fvcked up after war Iraq?

Is this the same place that Bush said (in his latest defense of the Iraq Blunde.....er....war) that we wanted to keep the weapons out of the terrorists hands?

Oh, and stolen airplanes are highly explosive...but it wasn't the Iraqies that stole them.

The point is far more explosives were secured than not.
And there are lots of explosive things in the world.

 

[Tom]

"The point is far more explosives were secured than not. "

how much was/is secured ?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
The military forces found nothing while securing the site in April, 2003. In May -18 months ago- full inspections confirmed that they were not there. Everything else you anti-Bushers are rambling about is pure speculation. You have no idea what you're saying. Your Bush-hating mentalities have you guessing and it's ignorant.

Once again a nonstory that just makes the the people inventing fanstasies look dumb. Man, you guys are desperate.

They did NOT secure the site in April 2003. They stopped by. We also know that at least one type of the explosives was still there under IAEA seal only four days before we invaded. We also know we essentially abandoned the site for about two months.

Your Bush-worshipping mentalities have you excusing and it's ignorant. Once again a diversion that just makes the Bush apologists look dumb. Man you bleating Bushies are desperate.



Was it as good for you as it was for me?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278
3,000/250,000,000 = 0.0012 see using that standard 9/11 wasn't a big deal because only .0012 % of the population of the US was killed.

It was a big deal and no stolen high explosives were used to do that.

Spencer278: your analogy was flawed. You can't compare victims to explosives. Instead, you need to point out that the four hijacked planes are a miniscule percentage of all airplanes. Therefore, they were insignificant. That's essentially what Charrison is arguing. No matter how many people they may kill, those explosives were a small percent of the total ordinance, certainly less than 10 or 20%.

:roll:

The point was the just looking at the percentage and say that it is less then one emans it isn't a big deal is fvcking stupid. Which what the Bush speacks to God crowd is doing.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Engineer, I've saved your post. My STORY?

"The military forces found nothing while securing the site in April, 2003. In May -18 months ago- full inspections confirmed that they were not there. Everything else you anti-Bushers are rambling about is pure speculation. You have no idea what you're saying. Your Bush-hating mentalities have you guessing and it's ignorant."

hehehe

You'd better start researching before I decide to make you look kinda dumb...

Your story is backed up by? Post some links that counteract the newest information coming out?

Boy, the pres was very quiet today....didn't have a word to say on the subject.

The Pentagon is scrambling all over the place.

This war wasn't needed and should not have occured. Bush and his crew fvcked it up...and the after war plans...if you can call them that....are a total cluster fvck.

Go ahead and make me look dumb...you've done a pretty good job of doing that to yourself...and you have also given a highlight to the the word "NEOCON".

You can take your Hitleristic American Planet Neoconservative ideas and shove them.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Yet nobody has shown that a single pound of this explosive is in insurgent hands. Nor has anyone shown the explosives weren't already gone by the time US troops arrived.

Don't be ridiculous. You're living in a fantasy world. Just like Bush.

Tell that nonsense to the U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians who are being blown up with ordinance that was looted because of the Bush administration's willful negligence and criminal malfeascence.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tom
"The point is far more explosives were secured than not. "

how much was/is secured ?

A large portion of the 400k is secured and over 100k has been destroyed.

 

[Rogue]

If, and that's a big if, this 380 tons of munitions is actually straight ordanance, then we're talking about 18 2,000 pound bombs here people. Hell, a Nissan Pathfinder Armada can tow 9,000 pounds which means it can tow away 4 2,000 pound bombs by itself. I will attest to the fact that it would be nice to know what type and what configuration these missing "goods" are to make a real assessment.

Either way, both sides will make a huge issue out of it as they see fit. Let's also be honest, there were plenty of Iraqi soldiers with access to this type of stuff anyway.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Yet nobody has shown that a single pound of this explosive is in insurgent hands. Nor has anyone shown the explosives weren't already gone by the time US troops arrived.

Don't be ridiculous. You're living in a fantasy world. Just like Bush.

Tell that nonsense to the U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians who are being blown up with ordinance that was looted because of the Bush administration's willful negligence and criminal malfeascence.

Ordinace, yes, the HX/RX no.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Engineer, I've saved your post. My STORY?

"The military forces found nothing while securing the site in April, 2003. In May -18 months ago- full inspections confirmed that they were not there. Everything else you anti-Bushers are rambling about is pure speculation. You have no idea what you're saying. Your Bush-hating mentalities have you guessing and it's ignorant."

hehehe

You'd better start researching before I decide to make you look kinda dumb...

You'd better go back and read through Bowfinger's posts. The military DIDN"T INSPECT THE SITE IN APRIL 2003.

You're going to make someone 'look kinda' dumb'??? You're arrogance is laughable. The only way you could make anyone 'look kinda' dumb' would be to hand out cwjerome masks for Halloween.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278
3,000/250,000,000 = 0.0012 see using that standard 9/11 wasn't a big deal because only .0012 % of the population of the US was killed.

It was a big deal and no stolen high explosives were used to do that.

Spencer278: your analogy was flawed. You can't compare victims to explosives. Instead, you need to point out that the four hijacked planes are a miniscule percentage of all airplanes. Therefore, they were insignificant. That's essentially what Charrison is arguing. No matter how many people they may kill, those explosives were a small percent of the total ordinance, certainly less than 10 or 20%.

:roll:

The point was the just looking at the percentage and say that it is less then one emans it isn't a big deal is fvcking stupid. Which what the Bush speacks to God crowd is doing.

(Hint: I'm agreeing with you. I was using sarcasm to point out how absurd it is to suggest the loss of these explosives is insignificant. It would be just as absurd as saying on the morning of 9/11/2001, "Well gee, only four of 4000 planes are missing. It's not important. It's only 0.1% of our planes. More planes 'are secured than not.' Don't worry. Be happy.")

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Rogue
If, and that's a big if, this 380 tons of munitions is actually straight ordanance, then we're talking about 18 2,000 pound bombs here people. Hell, a Nissan Pathfinder Armada can tow 9,000 pounds which means it can tow away 4 2,000 pound bombs by itself. I will attest to the fact that it would be nice to know what type and what configuration these missing "goods" are to make a real assessment.

Either way, both sides will make a huge issue out of it as they see fit. Let's also be honest, there were plenty of Iraqi soldiers with access to this type of stuff anyway.

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Yet nobody has shown that a single pound of this explosive is in insurgent hands. Nor has anyone shown the explosives weren't already gone by the time US troops arrived.

Don't be ridiculous. You're living in a fantasy world. Just like Bush.

Tell that nonsense to the U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians who are being blown up with ordinance that was looted because of the Bush administration's willful negligence and criminal malfeascence.

Ordinace, yes, the HX/RX no.

So which is it? High density explosives or a couple of Pathfinders worth of bombs???

It was high density explosives and it's in enemy hands thanks to the incompetence and outright criminal reckless negligence of the Bush administration.

 

[Engineer]

Russia calls for investigation
Russia called on the U.N. Security Council to investigate the issue Tuesday, but the United States said there was no need.

Andrey Denisov, Russian ambassador to the United Nations, told a closed meeting of the council that Russia wants to discuss the missing explosives as well as the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq.

U.S. Ambassador John Danforth said, "We have in place the Iraq Survey Group, which is equipped to look into all of this."

The news of the missing explosives followed an IAEA report earlier this month that said high-end, dual-use machinery that could be used in a nuclear weapons program was missing from Iraq's nuclear facilities. (Full story)

Of course there's no need...we can take care of it. Sure thing! :roll:

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Russia calls for investigation
Russia called on the U.N. Security Council to investigate the issue Tuesday, but the United States said there was no need.

Andrey Denisov, Russian ambassador to the United Nations, told a closed meeting of the council that Russia wants to discuss the missing explosives as well as the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq.

U.S. Ambassador John Danforth said, "We have in place the Iraq Survey Group, which is equipped to look into all of this."

The news of the missing explosives followed an IAEA report earlier this month that said high-end, dual-use machinery that could be used in a nuclear weapons program was missing from Iraq's nuclear facilities. (Full story)

Of course there's no need...we can take care of it. Sure thing! :roll:

So this is boiling over into an international incident. I wonder when the world's nations will demand regime change here in the U.S.A.? After all, these neocon madmen definitely have WMD and they have proven themselves to be aggressors against a nation that was not a threat and in fact couldn't have been a threat even if they wanted to.

Let's do the world a big favor and institute our own regime change next Tuesday.

 

[replicator]

No Check of Bunker, Unit Commander Says

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10...27bomb.html?oref=login

"Colonel Anderson, who is now the chief of staff for the division and who spoke by telephone from Fort Campbell, Ky., said his troops had been driving north toward Baghdad and had paused at Al Qaqaa to make plans for their next push.

"We happened to stumble on it,'' he said. "I didn't know what the place was supposed to be. We did not get involved in any of the bunkers. It was not our mission. It was not our focus. We were just stopping there on our way to Baghdad. The plan was to leave that very same day. The plan was not to go in there and start searching. It looked like all the other ammunition supply points we had seen already."

 

[cwjerome]

LOL, right

So the question is, were those explosives at that site after April, 2003? You say they were, based on... um, pure speculation. OK, keep blabbering about things when you don't know the facts... it's never stopped you before.

You will learn the answer to this question- and I can't wait to see what you say then. Carry on with the baseless conjecture...

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
LOL, right

So the question is, were those explosives at that site after April, 2003? You say they were, based on... um, pure speculation. OK, keep blabbering about things when you don't know the facts... it's never stopped you before.

You will learn the answer to this question- and I can't wait to see what you say then. Carry on with the baseless conjecture...

Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
LOL, right

So the question is, were those explosives at that site after April, 2003? You say they were, based on... um, pure speculation. OK, keep blabbering about things when you don't know the facts... it's never stopped you before.

You will learn the answer to this question- and I can't wait to see what you say then. Carry on with the baseless conjecture...

Did we secure the site as soon as possible or did we leave it unsecured after troops had already passed thru the site. It doesn't really matter if the weapons where taken before or after the fall of iraq what matters if they could have been if they where there.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
LOL, right

So the question is, were those explosives at that site after April, 2003? You say they were, based on... um, pure speculation. OK, keep blabbering about things when you don't know the facts... it's never stopped you before.

You will learn the answer to this question- and I can't wait to see what you say then. Carry on with the baseless conjecture...

That's not the question at all. You're capacity to make ridiculous statements in defense of the incompetence of the Bush administration is mind boggling.

The explosives were there on April 10 when the first American troops went through al Qaqaa. They disappeared sometime after that. They disappeared because of the failure of the Bush administration to plan for the aftermath of their baseless invasion of Iraq. Stop making excuses for these idiots. Stop twisting facts. We've had enough of that over the past four years with disastrous results.

 

[b0mbrman]

Seriously. Not only that, Kerry has been mentioning this all along and Bush has been ignoring it since the October 8 debate.

Link to 2nd debate transcript

GIBSON: Mr. President?

BUSH: I remember sitting in the White House looking at those generals, saying, "Do you have what you need in this war? Do you have what it takes?"

I remember going down to the basement of the White House the day we committed our troops as last resort, looking at Tommy Franks and the generals on the ground, asking them, "Do we have the right plan with the right troop level?"

And they looked me in the eye and said, "Yes, sir, Mr. President." Of course, I listen to our generals. That's what a president does. A president sets the strategy and relies upon good military people to execute that strategy.

GIBSON: Senator?

KERRY: You rely on good military people to execute the military component of the strategy, but winning the peace is larger than just the military component.

General Shinseki had the wisdom to say, "You're going to need several hundred thousand troops to win the peace." The military's job is to win the war.

A president's job is to win the peace.

The president did not do what was necessary. Didn't bring in enough nation. Didn't deliver the help. Didn't close off the borders. Didn't even guard the ammo dumps. And now our kids are being killed with ammos right out of that dump.

Dodge, dodge, dodge...

 

[replicator]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: cwjerome
LOL, right

So the question is, were those explosives at that site after April, 2003? You say they were, based on... um, pure speculation. OK, keep blabbering about things when you don't know the facts... it's never stopped you before.

You will learn the answer to this question- and I can't wait to see what you say then. Carry on with the baseless conjecture...

Did we secure the site as soon as possible or did we leave it unsecured after troops had already passed thru the site. It doesn't really matter if the weapons where taken before or after the fall of iraq what matters if they could have been if they where there.

Exactly. Even it is proved that it went missing before, the fact that they had US troops just go on by without even checking if they were still there is a huge mistake because it leaves open the possibility that they were. It also points out that the Bush admin didn't bother to consider how to deal with the existing weapon caches that they knew of, just like how they stood by while the country and its museums were being looted.

This just follows the same trend of short sightedness by the administration in the war.. Lack of soldiers, lack of international support, etc.. The list goes on and on.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: replicator

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: cwjerome
LOL, right

So the question is, were those explosives at that site after April, 2003? You say they were, based on... um, pure speculation. OK, keep blabbering about things when you don't know the facts... it's never stopped you before.

You will learn the answer to this question- and I can't wait to see what you say then. Carry on with the baseless conjecture...

Did we secure the site as soon as possible or did we leave it unsecured after troops had already passed thru the site. It doesn't really matter if the weapons where taken before or after the fall of iraq what matters if they could have been if they where there.

Exactly. Even it is proved that it went missing before, the fact that they had US troops just go on by without even checking if they were still there is a huge mistake because it leaves open the possibility that they were. It also points out that the Bush admin didn't bother to consider how to deal with the existing weapon caches that they knew of, just like how they stood by while the country and its museums were being looted.

This just follows the same trend of short sightedness by the administration in the war.. Lack of soldiers, lack of international support, etc.. The list goes on and on.

Exactly. Even if the explosives were gone before the Army got there, it is still proof of Bush's incompetence because it shows he didn't have a plan to get the explosives.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: replicator

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: cwjerome
LOL, right

So the question is, were those explosives at that site after April, 2003? You say they were, based on... um, pure speculation. OK, keep blabbering about things when you don't know the facts... it's never stopped you before.

You will learn the answer to this question- and I can't wait to see what you say then. Carry on with the baseless conjecture...

Did we secure the site as soon as possible or did we leave it unsecured after troops had already passed thru the site. It doesn't really matter if the weapons where taken before or after the fall of iraq what matters if they could have been if they where there.

Exactly. Even it is proved that it went missing before, the fact that they had US troops just go on by without even checking if they were still there is a huge mistake because it leaves open the possibility that they were. It also points out that the Bush admin didn't bother to consider how to deal with the existing weapon caches that they knew of, just like how they stood by while the country and its museums were being looted.

This just follows the same trend of short sightedness by the administration in the war.. Lack of soldiers, lack of international support, etc.. The list goes on and on.

Exactly. Even if the explosives were gone before the Army got there, it is still proof of Bush's incompetence because it shows he didn't have a plan to get the explosives.

You are setting up the impossible scenerio. Protecting everything with 100% reliabity. That in itself is impossible. The amount of explosives lost is in in area of round off error.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: replicator

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: cwjerome
LOL, right

So the question is, were those explosives at that site after April, 2003? You say they were, based on... um, pure speculation. OK, keep blabbering about things when you don't know the facts... it's never stopped you before.

You will learn the answer to this question- and I can't wait to see what you say then. Carry on with the baseless conjecture...

Did we secure the site as soon as possible or did we leave it unsecured after troops had already passed thru the site. It doesn't really matter if the weapons where taken before or after the fall of iraq what matters if they could have been if they where there.

Exactly. Even it is proved that it went missing before, the fact that they had US troops just go on by without even checking if they were still there is a huge mistake because it leaves open the possibility that they were. It also points out that the Bush admin didn't bother to consider how to deal with the existing weapon caches that they knew of, just like how they stood by while the country and its museums were being looted.

This just follows the same trend of short sightedness by the administration in the war.. Lack of soldiers, lack of international support, etc.. The list goes on and on.

Exactly. Even if the explosives were gone before the Army got there, it is still proof of Bush's incompetence because it shows he didn't have a plan to get the explosives.

You are setting up the impossible scenerio. Protecting everything with 100% reliabity. That in itself is impossible. The amount of explosives lost is in in area of round off error.

Protecting the largest ammo dump in Iraq, especially when you know of its existence before you go in, isn't an impossible scenario. It's mandatory.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: replicator

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: cwjerome
LOL, right

So the question is, were those explosives at that site after April, 2003? You say they were, based on... um, pure speculation. OK, keep blabbering about things when you don't know the facts... it's never stopped you before.

You will learn the answer to this question- and I can't wait to see what you say then. Carry on with the baseless conjecture...

Did we secure the site as soon as possible or did we leave it unsecured after troops had already passed thru the site. It doesn't really matter if the weapons where taken before or after the fall of iraq what matters if they could have been if they where there.

Exactly. Even it is proved that it went missing before, the fact that they had US troops just go on by without even checking if they were still there is a huge mistake because it leaves open the possibility that they were. It also points out that the Bush admin didn't bother to consider how to deal with the existing weapon caches that they knew of, just like how they stood by while the country and its museums were being looted.

This just follows the same trend of short sightedness by the administration in the war.. Lack of soldiers, lack of international support, etc.. The list goes on and on.

Exactly. Even if the explosives were gone before the Army got there, it is still proof of Bush's incompetence because it shows he didn't have a plan to get the explosives.

You are setting up the impossible scenerio. Protecting everything with 100% reliabity. That in itself is impossible. The amount of explosives lost is in in area of round off error.

Protecting the largest ammo dump in Iraq, especially when you know of its existence before you go in, isn't an impossible scenario. It's mandatory.

I dont think it is the largest and I also dont think you realize the number of ammo dumps that are in iraq.