380 tons stolen *BEFORE* troops arrived

[cwjerome]

Thoughts on the "controversy":

What an interesting little drama... the UN, CBS, NYT, and the Kerry Campaign, trying to put together a little Octorber Surprise of there own. Dirty trick or legitimate news? The UN hates Bush, wants to see a weaker USA, and maybe this was an attempt at payback... especially with the 'oil for food' investigations. Anyone who actually thinks the UN is nonpolitical and stays out of our business is a fool, plain and simple.

CBS is suspect, coming just 5 or 6 weeks after RatherGate. 60 Minutes interviews anyone who's critical of Bush (Woodward, Clark, etc) but hasn't put one person on who's critical of Kerry. They planned on airing this "story" barely 1 day before the election, when Bush would have no time to respond. CBS is a disgrace. The NYT... well, we all know how they feel and Bush and Iraq. They break a supposed story without the facts, and as usual look pretty dumb in the process.

The Kerry campaign charged into this mess, and now it's blowing up in their face. People are going to see this and know Kerry grabs at anything he can, nevermind the realities. Never mind Saddam was doing all kinds of weird shit, including moving around over 600,000 TONS (yes, 600,000 tons) of munitions before the invasion. April 9, 2003 Army Airborne (with an NBC correspondent) inspect the site and don't see that 370 tons of explosives. Later in May, inspectors confirm their missing status.

This story reeks of political sabotage, worse than that ultra-leftist guy in San Fransciso during the 1992 election that brought a false indictment on Weinberger days before the election, and the Bush DUI charges in 2000 days before the election. They got caught this time, and I just hope this crap being exposed backfires bad on them.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
The right wing echo chamber sure is quiet all of a sudden.

Time to change the title of this thread. I suggest:

"380 tons of high density explosives stolen due to sheer incompetence of Bush administration"
"U.S. voters oust Bush"



Security moms, please take note.

Before you get a little too gleeful here, you may want to consider that there's absolutely no proof the weapons weren't already missing before the 3rd Infantry (which got there first, before the 101st Airborne) arrived.

I do, however, understand that making premature, highly speculative pronouncements based on emotion instead of the facts are a liberal tradition so, carry on.

Yeah TLC. A liberal tradition of making highly speculative pronouncements based on emotion instead of facts like Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice et al made before their now proven baseless invasion of Iraq.

Not to mention their highly speculative pronouncement that these explosives were already gone when we got there, a claim they offered based on the their own twisted misrepresentation of the NBC story.

I agree. But nothing can be proven either way so boldly claiming it was Bush's fault is BS, just as boldly claiming it's not his fault is BS. iow, we don't know and won't know the truth, so this entire issue is ultimately nothing but speculation.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Abraxas
Only that with smaller amounts of explosives needed for the same job would be easier to smuggle and transport and that you can create more weapons with the same amount of materials.

There is no need to smuggle explosives into this country.

What about smuggling them into buildings or onto airplanes?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

I know it is reprehensible to claim that this is a huge failure to lose .00075% of the explosives in Iraq. It appears most of the EIDS have been made ordinance. This story is a nonstory.

It occurs to me that the terrorists, even Al-Qaeda, are in Iraq now, yes? Has it occured to the people who are dismissing the 380 tons of stolen high explosives as a non-issue what they could do with that? Considering what far less was able to do in Oklahoma City, you will forgive me if I disagree that this is not a problem. With our poor port inspection record and the gaping holes in the security of both coasts and both borders, Bush's attempt at keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists, or so he claimed, may have in fact given them an explosives jackpot. As much as I dislike fearmongering, I think it is worth considering how Bush's foreign policy has once again made us "safer."

Agreed, Abraxas. Can any of these Bush apologists imagine what an ocean container, which can hold up to 80,000 pounds of cargo, could do if loaded with high density explosives???

Much more damage than fertilizer and diesel fuel. How can they defend the incompetence of the Bush administration in allowing this threat to arise? Especially in light of the fact that they were FULLY AWARE of the existence of these explosives and still they refused to secure them.

I can't believe there is a single American who would cast a vote for Bush after such a display of criminal negligence.

You do realize there is more to making a large bomb than slapping explosives and a detonator together.
Exploding 80k worth of explosives would require much work.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
The right wing echo chamber sure is quiet all of a sudden.

Time to change the title of this thread. I suggest:

"380 tons of high density explosives stolen due to sheer incompetence of Bush administration"
"U.S. voters oust Bush"



Security moms, please take note.

Before you get a little too gleeful here, you may want to consider that there's absolutely no proof the weapons weren't already missing before the 3rd Infantry (which got there first, before the 101st Airborne) arrived.

I do, however, understand that making premature, highly speculative pronouncements based on emotion instead of the facts are a liberal tradition so, carry on.

Yeah TLC. A liberal tradition of making highly speculative pronouncements based on emotion instead of facts like Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice et al made before their now proven baseless invasion of Iraq.

Not to mention their highly speculative pronouncement that these explosives were already gone when we got there, a claim they offered based on the their own twisted misrepresentation of the NBC story.

I agree. But nothing can be proven either way so boldly claiming it was Bush's fault is BS, just as boldly claiming it's not his fault is BS. iow, we don't know and won't know the truth, so this entire issue is ultimately nothing but speculation.

The truth is, the explosives were secured by the IAEA before Bush lied to America and proceeded with his ill-planned baseless invasion of Iraq whereupon Iraq's arsenals were left open to looting by whomever wanted arms for the taking.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

I know it is reprehensible to claim that this is a huge failure to lose .00075% of the explosives in Iraq. It appears most of the EIDS have been made ordinance. This story is a nonstory.

First of all, your math is off by a factor of 100. It would be .075%, NOT .00075% as you claimed.

Second, you ignored my point about equating a ton of explosives to a ton of ordinance. Can you provide supporting evidence that your 400K tons of ordinance includes only the weight of explosives and not the weight of the casing, fuse, propellant, etc? Can you also provide supporting evidence that the explosives in this 400K tons is comparable in power to the missing high explosives? If not, your comparison is less that meaningless; it is intentionally deceptive.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

I know it is reprehensible to claim that this is a huge failure to lose .00075% of the explosives in Iraq. It appears most of the EIDS have been made ordinance. This story is a nonstory.

It occurs to me that the terrorists, even Al-Qaeda, are in Iraq now, yes? Has it occured to the people who are dismissing the 380 tons of stolen high explosives as a non-issue what they could do with that? Considering what far less was able to do in Oklahoma City, you will forgive me if I disagree that this is not a problem. With our poor port inspection record and the gaping holes in the security of both coasts and both borders, Bush's attempt at keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists, or so he claimed, may have in fact given them an explosives jackpot. As much as I dislike fearmongering, I think it is worth considering how Bush's foreign policy has once again made us "safer."

Agreed, Abraxas. Can any of these Bush apologists imagine what an ocean container, which can hold up to 80,000 pounds of cargo, could do if loaded with high density explosives???

Much more damage than fertilizer and diesel fuel. How can they defend the incompetence of the Bush administration in allowing this threat to arise? Especially in light of the fact that they were FULLY AWARE of the existence of these explosives and still they refused to secure them.

I can't believe there is a single American who would cast a vote for Bush after such a display of criminal negligence.

You do realize there is more to making a large bomb than slapping explosives and a detonator together.
Exploding 80k worth of explosives would require much work.

And thanks to the Bush administration's criminal incompetence someone has all the time and high explosives they need to pull it off.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Thoughts on the "controversy":

What an interesting little drama... the UN, CBS, NYT, and the Kerry Campaign, trying to put together a little Octorber Surprise of there own. Dirty trick or legitimate news? The UN hates Bush, wants to see a weaker USA, and maybe this was an attempt at payback... especially with the 'oil for food' investigations. Anyone who actually thinks the UN is nonpolitical and stays out of our business is a fool, plain and simple.

CBS is suspect, coming just 5 or 6 weeks after RatherGate. 60 Minutes interviews anyone who's critical of Bush (Woodward, Clark, etc) but hasn't put one person on who's critical of Kerry. They planned on airing this "story" barely 1 day before the election, when Bush would have no time to respond. CBS is a disgrace. The NYT... well, we all know how they feel and Bush and Iraq. They break a supposed story without the facts, and as usual look pretty dumb in the process.

The Kerry campaign charged into this mess, and now it's blowing up in their face. People are going to see this and know Kerry grabs at anything he can, nevermind the realities. Never mind Saddam was doing all kinds of weird shit, including moving around over 600,000 TONS (yes, 600,000 tons) of munitions before the invasion. April 9, 2003 Army Airborne (with an NBC correspondent) inspect the site and don't see that 370 tons of explosives. Later in May, inspectors confirm their missing status.

This story reeks of political sabotage, worse than that ultra-leftist guy in San Fransciso during the 1992 election that brought a false indictment on Weinberger days before the election, and the Bush DUI charges in 2000 days before the election. They got caught this time, and I just hope this crap being exposed backfires bad on them.

You haven't read today's messages, have you? The Bush diversion has unravelled.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

I know it is reprehensible to claim that this is a huge failure to lose .00075% of the explosives in Iraq. It appears most of the EIDS have been made ordinance. This story is a nonstory.

First of all, your math is off by a factor of 100. It would be .075%, NOT .00075% as you claimed.

Second, you ignored my point about equating a ton of explosives to a ton of ordinance. Can you provide supporting evidence that your 400K tons of ordinance includes only the weight of explosives and not the weight of the casing, fuse, propellant, etc? Can you also provide supporting evidence that the explosives in this 400K tons is comparable in power to the missing high explosives? If not, your comparison is less that meaningless; it is intentionally deceptive.

It is still a huge amount of explosives in relative comparison.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: replicator
U.S. troops didn't search weapons site: reporter
101st Airborne's stay at Al-Qaqaa was 24-hour 'pit stop' on way to Baghdad, embedded journalist remembers

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/...AX&tacodalogin=yes

NEW YORK ? An NBC News reporter embedded with a U.S. army unit that seized an Iraqi installation three weeks into the war said today that she saw no signs that the Americans searched for the powerful explosives that are now missing from the site.

Reporter Lai Ling Jew, who was embedded with the army's 101st Airborne, Second Brigade, said her news team stayed at the Al-Qaqaa base for about 24 hours.

"There wasn't a search," she told MSNBC, an NBC cable news channel. "The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around.

"But as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons, nothing to keep looters away."

Yep. As I posted in the other threads:

Did anyone happen to catch the NBC follow-up story tonight? They took the Bush attack machine to task for misrepresenting their story. They explicitly did NOT say the explosives were not there. They only said they did not see them. Of course, they also weren't looking for them, and there are over 1,000 buildings at the site.

In short, the Bush campaign pulled bits and pieces out of context, twisted them to mean something else, and loudly trumpted them as fact to divert attention from the real truth. I know the Bush apologists will give them a pass, of course, since this is the first time the Bush campaign has ever done anything like this ... well, at least since earlier that same day.

A couple of other unpleasant facts from tonight's NBC story. While the IAEA did their last full inspection in January, they did another spot check in March, only four days before the invasion. At that time, the one type of explosive was still safely under seal. They did not check the other type (sorry, can't remember which was which). While U.S. troops dropped by twice in April, they were not searching the site on either stop. It wasn't until May, about two months later that the Weapons Inspectors got there and discovered the IAEA explosives missing.

While it is certainly possible they disappeared in the four days between the last IAEA check and the invasion, only the most mindless partisan hack would try to assert that as fact. More than likely, they disappeared in the two months we negligently left the facility unprotected.

I'd say it's time for some of you to go back to attacking NBC and the other commie-lib media. :roll:

CNN ran a story tonight corroborating today's NBC report. CNN also said the Pentagon has now backed away from their earlier claims re. the explosives being gone, acknowledging they were based on the Bush misrepresentation of the NBC story and not on the Pentagon's own records.

Sorry Bushies. Another Bush diversion bites the dust.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

I know it is reprehensible to claim that this is a huge failure to lose .00075% of the explosives in Iraq. It appears most of the EIDS have been made ordinance. This story is a nonstory.

First of all, your math is off by a factor of 100. It would be .075%, NOT .00075% as you claimed.

Second, you ignored my point about equating a ton of explosives to a ton of ordinance. Can you provide supporting evidence that your 400K tons of ordinance includes only the weight of explosives and not the weight of the casing, fuse, propellant, etc? Can you also provide supporting evidence that the explosives in this 400K tons is comparable in power to the missing high explosives? If not, your comparison is less that meaningless; it is intentionally deceptive.

It is still a huge amount of explosives in relative comparison.

760,000 pounds of high explosives is a huge amount of explosives. Just admit it. Bush and his band of neocon madmen have really screwed this up. How can anyone in their right mind believe these war profiteering, criminally negligent ideologues can provide for the safety of our nation when they have made one error after another and failed to secure our ports, borders, and air cargo in the over three years since the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

I know it is reprehensible to claim that this is a huge failure to lose .00075% of the explosives in Iraq. It appears most of the EIDS have been made ordinance. This story is a nonstory.

First of all, your math is off by a factor of 100. It would be .075%, NOT .00075% as you claimed.

Second, you ignored my point about equating a ton of explosives to a ton of ordinance. Can you provide supporting evidence that your 400K tons of ordinance includes only the weight of explosives and not the weight of the casing, fuse, propellant, etc? Can you also provide supporting evidence that the explosives in this 400K tons is comparable in power to the missing high explosives? If not, your comparison is less that meaningless; it is intentionally deceptive.

It is still a huge amount of explosives in relative comparison.

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.

 

[Abraxas]

:Q Ouch. I think charrison just got pwned.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

I know it is reprehensible to claim that this is a huge failure to lose .00075% of the explosives in Iraq. It appears most of the EIDS have been made ordinance. This story is a nonstory.

First of all, your math is off by a factor of 100. It would be .075%, NOT .00075% as you claimed.

Second, you ignored my point about equating a ton of explosives to a ton of ordinance. Can you provide supporting evidence that your 400K tons of ordinance includes only the weight of explosives and not the weight of the casing, fuse, propellant, etc? Can you also provide supporting evidence that the explosives in this 400K tons is comparable in power to the missing high explosives? If not, your comparison is less that meaningless; it is intentionally deceptive.

It is still a huge amount of explosives in relative comparison.

In other words, you're just making numbers up without any idea what they mean. For sake of argument, let's assume that 400K tons is 10% explosives, e.g., a 0.5 pound charge in a 5.0 pound mortar shell. That raises your percentage to 7.5%. That would be a hell of a lot of explosives in a single heist. Maybe it's only 5 to 1. Maybe it's 20 to 1. You don't know. Plus you have no idea how powerful the missing explosives are compared to the average charge in that 400K ton talking point. If they're twice as powerful as the average, double the percentage. If they're ten-fold more powerful, multiply the percentage by 10.

With no information, your dismissal of the significance of this failure remains empty Bush apologism.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

I know it is reprehensible to claim that this is a huge failure to lose .00075% of the explosives in Iraq. It appears most of the EIDS have been made ordinance. This story is a nonstory.

First of all, your math is off by a factor of 100. It would be .075%, NOT .00075% as you claimed.

Second, you ignored my point about equating a ton of explosives to a ton of ordinance. Can you provide supporting evidence that your 400K tons of ordinance includes only the weight of explosives and not the weight of the casing, fuse, propellant, etc? Can you also provide supporting evidence that the explosives in this 400K tons is comparable in power to the missing high explosives? If not, your comparison is less that meaningless; it is intentionally deceptive.

It is still a huge amount of explosives in relative comparison.

760,000 pounds of high explosives is a huge amount of explosives. Just admit it. Bush and his band of neocon madmen have really screwed this up. How can anyone in their right mind believe these war profiteering, criminally negligent ideologues can provide for the safety of our nation when they have made one error after another and failed to secure our ports, borders, and air cargo in the over three years since the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history?

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.

 

[Abraxas]

Other than the pentagon who confirmed they were still intact when we first got there you mean?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

I know it is reprehensible to claim that this is a huge failure to lose .00075% of the explosives in Iraq. It appears most of the EIDS have been made ordinance. This story is a nonstory.

First of all, your math is off by a factor of 100. It would be .075%, NOT .00075% as you claimed.

Second, you ignored my point about equating a ton of explosives to a ton of ordinance. Can you provide supporting evidence that your 400K tons of ordinance includes only the weight of explosives and not the weight of the casing, fuse, propellant, etc? Can you also provide supporting evidence that the explosives in this 400K tons is comparable in power to the missing high explosives? If not, your comparison is less that meaningless; it is intentionally deceptive.

It is still a huge amount of explosives in relative comparison.

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.

 

[Bowfinger]

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.

You're probably right. I imagine it was Iraqi farmers who stole the 750,000 pounds of high explosives to clear stumps from the great Iraqi forests. Or maybe it was all those folks who were going to great us with hugs and flowers, looting them to make celebratory fireworks.




Too bad those fireworks will be aimed at human targets, one way or another.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

I know it is reprehensible to claim that this is a huge failure to lose .00075% of the explosives in Iraq. It appears most of the EIDS have been made ordinance. This story is a nonstory.

First of all, your math is off by a factor of 100. It would be .075%, NOT .00075% as you claimed.

Second, you ignored my point about equating a ton of explosives to a ton of ordinance. Can you provide supporting evidence that your 400K tons of ordinance includes only the weight of explosives and not the weight of the casing, fuse, propellant, etc? Can you also provide supporting evidence that the explosives in this 400K tons is comparable in power to the missing high explosives? If not, your comparison is less that meaningless; it is intentionally deceptive.

It is still a huge amount of explosives in relative comparison.

In other words, you're just making numbers up without any idea what they mean. For sake of argument, let's assume that 400K tons is 10% explosives, e.g., a 0.5 pound charge in a 5.0 pound mortar shell. That raises your percentage to 7.5%. That would be a hell of a lot of explosives in a single heist. Maybe it's only 5 to 1. Maybe it's 20 to 1. You don't know. Plus you have no idea how powerful the missing explosives are compared to the average charge in that 400K ton talking point. If they're twice as powerful as the average, double the percentage. If they're ten-fold more powerful, multiply the percentage by 10.

With no information, your dismissal of the significance of this failure remains empty Bush apologism.

Assuming everything is a 5 lb mortar charge is a bad assumption too. 400,000ton of ordinance is still a considerable amount of explosives. Far more than 300tons.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Engineer]

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.

And you back up your story how? By calling us desparate?

Thanks for playing...have a nice war...er day!

 

[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:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Eitherway we are still only talking about .02% of the explosives in Iraq. This loss is on the scale of rounding error.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I think that's a reprehensible way to spin this story. I also think it is inaccurate. I believe you are basing this on total tons of either weapons in general or possibly ordinance. This was pure explosives as I understand it.

I know it is reprehensible to claim that this is a huge failure to lose .00075% of the explosives in Iraq. It appears most of the EIDS have been made ordinance. This story is a nonstory.

First of all, your math is off by a factor of 100. It would be .075%, NOT .00075% as you claimed.

Second, you ignored my point about equating a ton of explosives to a ton of ordinance. Can you provide supporting evidence that your 400K tons of ordinance includes only the weight of explosives and not the weight of the casing, fuse, propellant, etc? Can you also provide supporting evidence that the explosives in this 400K tons is comparable in power to the missing high explosives? If not, your comparison is less that meaningless; it is intentionally deceptive.

It is still a huge amount of explosives in relative comparison.

In other words, you're just making numbers up without any idea what they mean. For sake of argument, let's assume that 400K tons is 10% explosives, e.g., a 0.5 pound charge in a 5.0 pound mortar shell. That raises your percentage to 7.5%. That would be a hell of a lot of explosives in a single heist. Maybe it's only 5 to 1. Maybe it's 20 to 1. You don't know. Plus you have no idea how powerful the missing explosives are compared to the average charge in that 400K ton talking point. If they're twice as powerful as the average, double the percentage. If they're ten-fold more powerful, multiply the percentage by 10.

With no information, your dismissal of the significance of this failure remains empty Bush apologism.

Assuming everything is a 5 lb mortar charge is a bad assumption too. 400,000ton of ordinance is still a considerable amount of explosives. Far more than 300tons.

Can you offer any useful, factual information about those 400K tons of ordinance or not? If not, you're just talking out your rectum.


PS. your example cuts both ways. How many grains of "explosive" are in your average bullet compared to the weight of the casing and slug? Maybe 50 to 1? Does that 400K tons include that sort of ammunition?

 

[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...