At Iraqi Depot, Missiles Galore and No Guards

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
While the Bush administration is considering spending another $600 million on top of the $300 million they've already wasted searching for non-existent WMD there are still millions of pounds of armaments unsecured for the taking in Iraq.

Proof positive of the lack of planning for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion.

WTF are these people thinking?

Now go ahead Bush apologists, tell us how they had no way of knowing. Then explain why the morons you support didn't know and why they had to conduct their selective, unnecessary invasion that created this problem in the first place.

At Iraqi Depot, Missiles Galore and No Guards
By RAYMOND BONNER and IAN FISHER

Published: October 17, 2003


MUSAYYIB, Iraq, Oct. 16 ? It weighs more than a thousand pounds, so carting it away could present a few logistical problems for the average looter. But the fact remains that there is a very nice 15-foot-long missile, in mint condition, there for the taking, at one of Saddam Hussein's defense factories a few miles west of here.

The missile, along with a dozen ready-to-fire 107-millimeter antitank rounds, just a few feet away, is part of a problem that the American military has only begun to grapple with: as much as one million tons of ammunition is scattered around Iraq, much of it unguarded ? like the armaments here ? simply because the United States does not have the personnel to keep watch.

On Thursday in Baghdad, an American brigadier general, Robert L. Davis, acknowledged the scope of the problem, saying that there are 105 large ammunition dumps as well as scores of smaller sites, not all of them guarded regularly. But General Davis, who is overseeing the cleanup, sought to give assurances that the Pentagon is working as fast as possible.

In the past three weeks alone, he said, recently deployed private civilian contractors have destroyed more than 2.5 million pounds of ammunition, whereas American soldiers were able to destroy only a million pounds in the last six months.

"It's a very high priority," General Davis told reporters.

But on Thursday, not a single soldier or guard was to be seen at this compound in the desert 40 miles south of Baghdad. A few Iraqis wandered about, and vehicles drove on the roads in the compound; one man drove off on his three-wheeled motorcycle with a bounty of long sections of pipe.

Evidently, American soldiers were here during the war. Their graffiti attests to that ? "Saddam Free Zone," "Go Team USA #1." Apparently, they left before thoroughly searching the site, or perhaps they simply lacked the time or expertise to clean it up.

The compound ? part factory, part warehouse, with several reinforced bunkers sprinkled about the grounds ? is rubble now, demolished by American bombs. But missiles are everywhere. There is a 30-foot missile with Russian markings, still on its trolley, on a sidewalk. The propellant appears to have been removed, but the nose cone is intact.

Two Exocet missiles ? clearly labeled as such and stamped "AEROSPATIALE" ? lie on the ground several hundred yards away. They seem to have been rendered largely useless by the bombing, but parts may be of some value.

The best-preserved missile, the 15-footer, appeared to be another Exocet, though because of the container's position against the wall, only the cone could be seen. The writing on the shipping tube, in French and English, was inconclusive.

Outside in the rubble was a shoulder-fired SA-7, a Russian-made surface-to-air missile, caked with dirt.

It is impossible to know how much has been looted from this factory. In the desert about five miles away is the shell of a truck. Bedouins said the truck had belonged to looters who were captured several weeks ago by Americans.

The desert sand around where the truck was found is littered with mounds of mortar and artillery shells. Most of them appeared to have been defused, but a few live, small rockets, as well as several hundred live large caliber rounds, were found among the litter. It is not clear how the munitions got here.

The issue of unguarded Iraqi ammunition dumps has taken on greater urgency recently as the pace of bomb attacks against American forces and other targets has increased. Military officials say much of the explosives being used in the attacks come from ammunition sites like this one, which had once belonged to Mr. Hussein's army.

As if to underscore the threat, six rockets were fired on Wednesday into the green zone in Baghdad, the heavily guarded cocoon that protects senior American officials, including L. Paul Bremer III, the top civilian administrator. No one was hurt. It was the second such attack.

After American troops took over in Iraq, they were confronted with an astonishing number of obvious weapons caches: in schools and mosques, and in houses in neighborhoods where the residents had apparently been moved out before the war.

Sometimes those dumps exploded, killing and wounding people and stoking Iraqis' anger against the Americans.

Soldiers are finding more dumps every day. General Davis said that in one military zone in northern Iraq, commanders first reported 730 weapons caches. More recently, the number climbed to 1,089, though General Davis said all but 12 had been destroyed.

General Davis said the military had not ignored the problem. He said that the Pentagon had hired private contractors, but that they had only been working about three weeks and were still not here in full force.

"I don't think we've been slow to recognize the problem," he said. "You can already see the difference in what we could do in about a six-month period and what they can do in a three-week period at partial mobilization."

While he said the job of guarding the dumps was not under his command, he said many of them were either protected by American soldiers or at least patrolled regularly.

But he conceded that some were not. "I don't know why we could not guard them all," General Davis said.

Another military official said that 6,000 American soldiers had been assigned to manning the dumps, but that more were needed.

General Davis said $285 million had been allocated in the next year to clean up the ammunition, a job that he said would take several years.

Right now, there are 160 civilian contractors from four private companies, with another 120 in Kuwait. In total there will be 430 people dedicated to destroying the ammunition when the the operation is at full capacity in December, he said.


Raymond Bonner reported for this article from Musayyib and Ian Fisher from Baghdad
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
I don't think it is physically possible to secure every single ammunition storage depot in Iraq.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
I don't think it is physically possible to secure every single ammunition storage depot in Iraq.

It wasn't necessary to do so prior to March 20, 2003.

And there was no plan in place to secure the weapons afterwards.

The point is, this is just another in a long line of failures by the Bush administration in their unnecessary invasion.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
I don't think it is physically possible to secure every single ammunition storage depot in Iraq.

In David Kay's report to Congress he stated that there were 130 main ammunition depots scattered throughout the country (of which they had only gotten through 10 in 3 months). Some were more than 50 square miles. Plus, there are many smaller ones scattered throughout the country.

This sounds like a logistics issue more than a 'Bush is an idiot' issue.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
I don't think it is physically possible to secure every single ammunition storage depot in Iraq.

It wasn't necessary to do so prior to March 20, 2003.

And there was no plan in place to secure the weapons afterwards.

The point is, this is just another in a long line of failures by the Bush administration in their unnecessary invasion.

My point is you could at least criticize them on things that they could realistically achieve. Maybe if they had sent the entier Army, Marine corps, and several divisions of foriegn troops they could have secured all the weapons..but that is unrealistic.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
I don't think it is physically possible to secure every single ammunition storage depot in Iraq.

It wasn't necessary to do so prior to March 20, 2003.

And there was no plan in place to secure the weapons afterwards.

The point is, this is just another in a long line of failures by the Bush administration in their unnecessary invasion.

My point is you could at least criticize them on things that they could realistically achieve. Maybe if they had sent the entier Army, Marine corps, and several divisions of foriegn troops they could have secured all the weapons..but that is unrealistic.

Maybe if the UN inspections had been completed this wouldn't be an issue.

Maybe if they hadn't lied about the existence of WMD we wouldn't have invaded to begin with.

Maybe if they had any plan at all for the aftermath of their invasion this problem could have been minimized.

The next time you read about some US soldiers or UN diplomats or innocent civilians being blown up you'll realize these arms are what they are being blown up with.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
I don't think it is physically possible to secure every single ammunition storage depot in Iraq.

It wasn't necessary to do so prior to March 20, 2003.

And there was no plan in place to secure the weapons afterwards.

The point is, this is just another in a long line of failures by the Bush administration in their unnecessary invasion.

My point is you could at least criticize them on things that they could realistically achieve. Maybe if they had sent the entier Army, Marine corps, and several divisions of foriegn troops they could have secured all the weapons..but that is unrealistic.

Maybe if the UN inspections had been completed this wouldn't be an issue.

Maybe if they hadn't lied about the existence of WMD we wouldn't have invaded to begin with.

Maybe if they had any plan at all for the aftermath of their invasion this problem could have been minimized.

The next time you read about some US soldiers or UN diplomats or innocent civilians being blown up you'll realize these arms are what they are being blown up with.


Did they secure every fertilizer storage site in Iraq as well? that could also be easily converted to bombs.

I think you need to relax a bit. If your ultimate point is that we should not have invaded Iraq then fine. Making unrealistic expectations does not help your ultimate point.
 

bjc112

Lifer
Dec 23, 2000
11,460
0
76
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
I don't think it is physically possible to secure every single ammunition storage depot in Iraq.

exactly..

And that only helps to prove the point that WMD or Chem/BIO weapons can still be found...

So many places to look, and so many documents to go through...
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Did they secure every fertilizer storage site in Iraq as well? that could also be easily converted to bombs.
Don't forget about gasoline stations. ;)
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: bjc112
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
I don't think it is physically possible to secure every single ammunition storage depot in Iraq.

exactly..

And that only helps to prove the point that WMD or Chem/BIO weapons can still be found...

So many places to look, and so many documents to go through...

They could still be found...but I won't hold my breath.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
I don't think it is physically possible to secure every single ammunition storage depot in Iraq.

It wasn't necessary to do so prior to March 20, 2003.

And there was no plan in place to secure the weapons afterwards.

The point is, this is just another in a long line of failures by the Bush administration in their unnecessary invasion.

My point is you could at least criticize them on things that they could realistically achieve. Maybe if they had sent the entier Army, Marine corps, and several divisions of foriegn troops they could have secured all the weapons..but that is unrealistic.

Maybe if the UN inspections had been completed this wouldn't be an issue.

Maybe if they hadn't lied about the existence of WMD we wouldn't have invaded to begin with.

Maybe if they had any plan at all for the aftermath of their invasion this problem could have been minimized.

The next time you read about some US soldiers or UN diplomats or innocent civilians being blown up you'll realize these arms are what they are being blown up with.


Did they secure every fertilizer storage site in Iraq as well? that could also be easily converted to bombs.

I think you need to relax a bit. If your ultimate point is that we should not have invaded Iraq then fine. Making unrealistic expectations does not help your ultimate point.


Rumsfeld's plan, rejected by the Pentagon military, did not plan for the aftermath of the invasion, did not plan to secure Iraqi munitions, did not plan for the attacks that are taking place at the rate of 20 per day, did not plan for the chaos that ruled in Iraq's major cities. Basically Rumsfeld's plan wasn't a plan.

Now there are millions of tons of munitions sitting unprotected in depots all over Iraq. These are the weapons being used in attacks on our troops, innocent civilians, aid workers - any other target necessary to keep Iraq in a state of turmoil.

Are you suggesting the lack of planning by the Bush administration is justifiable?
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Did they secure every fertilizer storage site in Iraq as well? that could also be easily converted to bombs.
Don't forget about gasoline stations. ;)

You don't need to worry about gas stations being blown up. Halliburton will make sure they are safe. They're making too much gouging American taxpayers on the price of fuel to allow anything to harm their investment.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
I don't think it is physically possible to secure every single ammunition storage depot in Iraq.

It wasn't necessary to do so prior to March 20, 2003.

And there was no plan in place to secure the weapons afterwards.

The point is, this is just another in a long line of failures by the Bush administration in their unnecessary invasion.

My point is you could at least criticize them on things that they could realistically achieve. Maybe if they had sent the entier Army, Marine corps, and several divisions of foriegn troops they could have secured all the weapons..but that is unrealistic.

Maybe if the UN inspections had been completed this wouldn't be an issue.

Maybe if they hadn't lied about the existence of WMD we wouldn't have invaded to begin with.

Maybe if they had any plan at all for the aftermath of their invasion this problem could have been minimized.

The next time you read about some US soldiers or UN diplomats or innocent civilians being blown up you'll realize these arms are what they are being blown up with.


Did they secure every fertilizer storage site in Iraq as well? that could also be easily converted to bombs.

I think you need to relax a bit. If your ultimate point is that we should not have invaded Iraq then fine. Making unrealistic expectations does not help your ultimate point.


Rumsfeld's plan, rejected by the Pentagon military, did not plan for the aftermath of the invasion, did not plan to secure Iraqi munitions, did not plan for the attacks that are taking place at the rate of 20 per day, did not plan for the chaos that ruled in Iraq's major cities. Basically Rumsfeld's plan wasn't a plan.

Now there are millions of tons of munitions sitting unprotected in depots all over Iraq. These are the weapons being used in attacks on our troops, innocent civilians, aid workers - any other target necessary to keep Iraq in a state of turmoil.

Are you suggesting the lack of planning by the Bush administration is justifiable?


No...I am saying thier are far more valid criticisms of the post war planning than that of not securing every Iraqi military ordinance site. This is an impossible task, so to criticize them for not planning to do the impossible borders on idiocy and is at best irrelevant.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Did they secure every fertilizer storage site in Iraq as well? that could also be easily converted to bombs.
Don't forget about gasoline stations. ;)

You don't need to worry about gas stations being blown up. Halliburton will make sure they are safe. They're making too much gouging American taxpayers on the price of fuel to allow anything to harm their investment.
Got any proof that "Halliburton will make sure they are safe"? What security measures has Halliburton implemented for Iraqi service stations? Cite please.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Did they secure every fertilizer storage site in Iraq as well? that could also be easily converted to bombs.
Don't forget about gasoline stations. ;)

You don't need to worry about gas stations being blown up. Halliburton will make sure they are safe. They're making too much gouging American taxpayers on the price of fuel to allow anything to harm their investment.
Got any proof that "Halliburton will make sure they are safe"? What security measures has Halliburton implemented for Iraqi service stations? Cite please.

They have 140,000 US troops stationed in Iraq by the Bush administration to make sure they can maintain their price gouging no-bid US government contracts.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
I don't think it is physically possible to secure every single ammunition storage depot in Iraq.

It wasn't necessary to do so prior to March 20, 2003.

And there was no plan in place to secure the weapons afterwards.

The point is, this is just another in a long line of failures by the Bush administration in their unnecessary invasion.

My point is you could at least criticize them on things that they could realistically achieve. Maybe if they had sent the entier Army, Marine corps, and several divisions of foriegn troops they could have secured all the weapons..but that is unrealistic.

Maybe if the UN inspections had been completed this wouldn't be an issue.

Maybe if they hadn't lied about the existence of WMD we wouldn't have invaded to begin with.

Maybe if they had any plan at all for the aftermath of their invasion this problem could have been minimized.

The next time you read about some US soldiers or UN diplomats or innocent civilians being blown up you'll realize these arms are what they are being blown up with.


Did they secure every fertilizer storage site in Iraq as well? that could also be easily converted to bombs.

I think you need to relax a bit. If your ultimate point is that we should not have invaded Iraq then fine. Making unrealistic expectations does not help your ultimate point.


Rumsfeld's plan, rejected by the Pentagon military, did not plan for the aftermath of the invasion, did not plan to secure Iraqi munitions, did not plan for the attacks that are taking place at the rate of 20 per day, did not plan for the chaos that ruled in Iraq's major cities. Basically Rumsfeld's plan wasn't a plan.

Now there are millions of tons of munitions sitting unprotected in depots all over Iraq. These are the weapons being used in attacks on our troops, innocent civilians, aid workers - any other target necessary to keep Iraq in a state of turmoil.

Are you suggesting the lack of planning by the Bush administration is justifiable?


No...I am saying thier are far more valid criticisms of the post war planning than that of not securing every Iraqi military ordinance site. This is an impossible task, so to criticize them for not planning to do the impossible borders on idiocy and is at best irrelevant.

Do you consider NO PLANNING for the aftermath of an unnecessary invasion idiocy?
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Did they secure every fertilizer storage site in Iraq as well? that could also be easily converted to bombs.
Don't forget about gasoline stations. ;)

You don't need to worry about gas stations being blown up. Halliburton will make sure they are safe. They're making too much gouging American taxpayers on the price of fuel to allow anything to harm their investment.
Got any proof that "Halliburton will make sure they are safe"? What security measures has Halliburton implemented for Iraqi service stations? Cite please.

They have 140,000 US troops stationed in Iraq by the Bush administration to make sure they can maintain their price gouging no-bid US government contracts.
Ah yes, the good old 'price gouging' rant. Nevermind that you, or anyone else on this forum for that matter, wouldn't be caught dead driving a tanker truck in Iraq in the first place.

So WTF does this have to do with why I "don't need to worry about gas stations being blown up"? Are you saying the troops are guarding gas stations instead of performing other duties?
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Do you consider NO PLANNING for the aftermath of an unnecessary invasion idiocy?

I consider your "NO PLANNING" claim as another piece in a rather large body of evidence--all of which point out you suffer from an incurable case of terminal stupidity.

 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: Corn
Do you consider NO PLANNING for the aftermath of an unnecessary invasion idiocy?

I consider your "NO PLANNING" claim as another piece in a rather large body of evidence--all of which point out you suffer from an incurable case of terminal stupidity.

Personal attack one again.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Personal attack one again.

Are you suggesting that BOBDN's assertion is not ridiculous? That it isn't a pattern with him?

In the airplane thread you already fell victim to this moron's singular tactic in arguing his point: His functional illiteracy. "Do you understand that?" ;)
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: Corn
Personal attack one again.

Are you suggesting that BOBDN's assertion is not ridiculous? That it isn't a pattern with him?

In the airplane thread you already fell victim to this moron's singular tactic in arguing his point: His functional illiteracy. "Do you understand that?" ;)

I'm not saying it isn't actually I said it was in a previous post..but thier is no need for personal attacks. It lowers the level of the discourse.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
I'm not saying it isn't actually I said it was in a previous post..but thier is no need for personal attacks. It lowers the level of the discourse.

Lowers the level of the discourse........relative to what? BOBDN's first post in this thread is laced with personal attacks, not aimed at me "personally", but there nonetheless.

Civil discourse is fine Justin, but that sure doesn't describe the overwhelming majority of BOBDN's posts.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Corn
I'm not saying it isn't actually I said it was in a previous post..but thier is no need for personal attacks. It lowers the level of the discourse.

Lowers the level of the discourse........relative to what? BOBDN's first post in this thread is laced with personal attacks, not aimed at me "personally", but there nonetheless.

Civil discourse is fine Justin, but that sure doesn't describe the overwhelming majority of BOBDN's posts.

Anyone who disagrees with corn is using personal attacks.

His name calling and the usual off topic BS he posts are OK because he is corn.

Stick to the subject. The Bush administration made it possible, and is still making it possible, for terrorists or anyone else in Iraq, to use weapons the Bush administration failed to secure to blow up US troops, innocent civilians, UN workers or anyone else they choose.

Are you supporting having these people use the weapons the Bush administration failed to secure?
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Are you supporting having these people use the weapons the Bush administration failed to secure?

As if it were any suprise why I believe you have to concentrate just to breath at regular intervals...........

 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Corn
Are you supporting having these people use the weapons the Bush administration failed to secure?

As if it were any suprise why I believe you have to concentrate just to breath at regular intervals...........

That doesn't answer the question.

But it's OK corn. I can see why you'd want to evade the question.

The arms your fearless leader failed to secure are being used to kill Americans. Even you won't try to spin that.