" Pentagon loses track of weapons for Iraqi forces"

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Skoorb

While 200,000 seems like an awful lot to me, the basic premise of losing a whole bunch of weapons in that hellhole in this situation isn't at all shocking.

Is it not shocking to you because you know the war is mismanaged at so many levels?

200k seems shocking because it is. This is a country with a population of only 25 million, so that really is quite a damn lot of machine guns.

I didnt see any machine guns mentioned in the report. 😕

Majority are Glock pistols and some AK variant which are automatics.

AK is not a machine gun.

But they are most likely fully automatic wepaons.

I find it hard to understand why you would defend such obivous disregard for the lives of our soldiers that may well be killed with weapons/ammo we provided?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: alien42
when will the obscene failures stop? congrats GW and company for arming the enemy that you created.

Is it so ignorant to assume this is done on purpose? Afterall, the stronger AQ is, the stronger we have to be. The longer the war on terror will be, the more money we spend for military, the more rights taken away. The boogyman needs to be more scary than it is.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
But they are most likely fully automatic wepaons.

I find it hard to understand why you would defend such obivous disregard for the lives of our soldiers that may well be killed with weapons/ammo we provided?

nick is either already enlisted or plans to be (from what I gathered).

That means he's in ostrich mode (buried his head in the sand).

Instead of commenting about the obvious negligence by the Pentagon, he chooses to nit-pick a member's wording.

An AK-47 is a semi-auto or full-auto (likely full-auto for Iraqi troops) combat rifle. Highly accurate, very lethal.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Skoorb

While 200,000 seems like an awful lot to me, the basic premise of losing a whole bunch of weapons in that hellhole in this situation isn't at all shocking.

Is it not shocking to you because you know the war is mismanaged at so many levels?

200k seems shocking because it is. This is a country with a population of only 25 million, so that really is quite a damn lot of machine guns.

I didnt see any machine guns mentioned in the report. 😕

Majority are Glock pistols and some AK variant which are automatics.

AK is not a machine gun.

By whose definition? In the US machineguns are defined as firing more than one round with a single pull of the trigger.

Regardless of semantics, the US has provided belt-fed machineguns as well, granted, in very small numbers.

 

[alien42]

nm

 

[DrPizza]

Haliburton: "Yep, we delivered those weapons to you. You must have lost them."
<sees that the story is being believed>
Haliburton execs: <high five each other>

It may not be *that* bad.


Then again, wasn't the largest ammo depot in Iraq left unguarded in the early days after the US took over Baghdad, and everything there just "disappeared?"

 

[SirStev0]

Runawaybudgetsaywhat?

 

[Jaskalas]

Those in charge of the transportation and the person who picked them should be sent to clean toilets for a living. Maybe we need to investigate if criminal negligence is to blame.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Skoorb

While 200,000 seems like an awful lot to me, the basic premise of losing a whole bunch of weapons in that hellhole in this situation isn't at all shocking.

Is it not shocking to you because you know the war is mismanaged at so many levels?

200k seems shocking because it is. This is a country with a population of only 25 million, so that really is quite a damn lot of machine guns.

I didnt see any machine guns mentioned in the report. 😕

Majority are Glock pistols and some AK variant which are automatics.

AK is not a machine gun.

But they are most likely fully automatic wepaons.

I find it hard to understand why you would defend such obivous disregard for the lives of our soldiers that may well be killed with weapons/ammo we provided?

Im not defending it. I think its pretty stupid that they would allow these weapons to simply go missing. Fully auto weapon does not translate into a machine gun, however. Saying "machine gun" implies something like this, or this.. Typically, machine guns are squad support weapons that are mounted on a bi-pod or a tri-pod, and fire several hundred rounds a minute.

The AK-47 is definately not a machine gun, even though it fires full-auto. It cannot fire the amount of rounds a minute that a machine gun can, it does not have a bi-pod support, and the size of the rounds are not nearly large enough for squad support. This weapon is classified as a "rifle" or, an "assault rifle". Even the original post calls them "rifles"

"a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge. " -- assault rifle definition


But I guess peoples definitions differ. Some say just full-auto is classified as a machine gun, but if thats the case then really small-caliber machine pistols would be machine guns.
Text

And there is a BIG difference between an MP5 and a .50cal.


**EDIT**

Text

The AK round is in the middle, and the .50cal "machine gun" round is on the end. You can see the big (no pun intended 😛) difference.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
But they are most likely fully automatic wepaons.

I find it hard to understand why you would defend such obivous disregard for the lives of our soldiers that may well be killed with weapons/ammo we provided?

nick is either already enlisted or plans to be (from what I gathered).

That means he's in ostrich mode (buried his head in the sand).

Instead of commenting about the obvious negligence by the Pentagon, he chooses to nit-pick a member's wording.

An AK-47 is a semi-auto or full-auto (likely full-auto for Iraqi troops) combat rifle. Highly accurate, very lethal.

Incorrect sir. I am not enlisting, I plan on being commissioned. Thanks for the ignorant statement regarding my beliefs though, I appreciate it. :thumbsup:

And I am well aware of what an AK-47 is, and calling it a "machine gun" is not really accurate, just pointing it out. See above post.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: nick1985
Incorrect sir. I am not enlisting, I plan on being commissioned. Thanks for the statement regarding my ignorant beliefs though, I appreciate it. :thumbsup:

Fixed.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: nick1985
Incorrect sir. I am not enlisting, I plan on being commissioned. Thanks for the statement regarding my ignorant beliefs though, I appreciate it. :thumbsup:

Fixed.

Personal attack?

Anyhow, I think the fact that you would quote me and change the words around like that says a lot about your character.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Topic Title: " Pentagon loses track of weapons for Iraqi forces"
Topic Summary: Can our government really be that inept?

Link

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon cannot account for 190,000 AK-47 rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, or about half the weapons earmarked for soldiers and police, according to a government report.

190,000 AK-47 rifles and pistols?

WTF? Can they really be that inept, or do these weapons end up being sold on the black market? Horrifying, either way.

Damn, first I get screwed out of $2,000 after nearly getting killed in Katrina and now this, miss out on my own personal U.S. supplied weapon.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Skoorb

While 200,000 seems like an awful lot to me, the basic premise of losing a whole bunch of weapons in that hellhole in this situation isn't at all shocking.

Is it not shocking to you because you know the war is mismanaged at so many levels?

200k seems shocking because it is. This is a country with a population of only 25 million, so that really is quite a damn lot of machine guns.

I didnt see any machine guns mentioned in the report. 😕

Majority are Glock pistols and some AK variant which are automatics.

AK is not a machine gun.

But they are most likely fully automatic wepaons.

I find it hard to understand why you would defend such obivous disregard for the lives of our soldiers that may well be killed with weapons/ammo we provided?

So says the armchair general. Based on your post I would assume you are not currently serving and therefore have no clue wtf you are talking about.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Haliburton: "Yep, we delivered those weapons to you. You must have lost them."
<sees that the story is being believed>
Haliburton execs: <high five each other>

It may not be *that* bad.

Then again, wasn't the largest ammo depot in Iraq left unguarded in the early days after the US took over Baghdad, and everything there just "disappeared?"

Yup. I'd worry alot more about the 380 tons of HMX and RDX that we forgot to secure, though, 200,000 automatic weapons would arm a nice-sized jihadist army . . . or a bunch of "Girls Gone Wild'

Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq

The bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound of the same type of material

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Skoorb

While 200,000 seems like an awful lot to me, the basic premise of losing a whole bunch of weapons in that hellhole in this situation isn't at all shocking.

Is it not shocking to you because you know the war is mismanaged at so many levels?

200k seems shocking because it is. This is a country with a population of only 25 million, so that really is quite a damn lot of machine guns.

I didnt see any machine guns mentioned in the report. 😕

Majority are Glock pistols and some AK variant which are automatics.

AK is not a machine gun.

But they are most likely fully automatic wepaons.

I find it hard to understand why you would defend such obivous disregard for the lives of our soldiers that may well be killed with weapons/ammo we provided?

Im not defending it. I think its pretty stupid that they would allow these weapons to simply go missing. Fully auto weapon does not translate into a machine gun, however. Saying "machine gun" implies something like this, or this.. Typically, machine guns are squad support weapons that are mounted on a bi-pod or a tri-pod, and fire several hundred rounds a minute.

The AK-47 is definately not a machine gun, even though it fires full-auto. It cannot fire the amount of rounds a minute that a machine gun can, it does not have a bi-pod support, and the size of the rounds are not nearly large enough for squad support. This weapon is classified as a "rifle" or, an "assault rifle". Even the original post calls them "rifles"

"a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge. " -- assault rifle definition


But I guess peoples definitions differ. Some say just full-auto is classified as a machine gun, but if thats the case then really small-caliber machine pistols would be machine guns.
Text

And there is a BIG difference between an MP5 and a .50cal.


**EDIT**

Text

The AK round is in the middle, and the .50cal "machine gun" round is on the end. You can see the big (no pun intended 😛) difference.

I have a cartridge collection and have both ak-47 and .50 cal rounds so I know the difference. I doubt a lpot of people do though, so now thanks to your picture they will. Still, most people, myself included do think of most fully automatic weapons as machine guns.

Google Image results for "machine gun"

wikipedia: A machine gun is a fully-automatic mounted or portable firearm, usually designed to fire rifle cartridges in quick succession from an ammunition belt or large-capacity magazine

So most people are going to think of a AK-47 as a machine gun and it's kind of silly IMO to think of them as not being a machine gun. They may not be a heavy machine gun but they are machine guns none the less.

 

[dahunan]

Machine guns are the only guns used to kill our soldiers so it is good that these were not machine guns

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

So says the armchair general. Based on your post I would assume you are not currently serving and therefore have no clue wtf you are talking about.

See the above post. I've never actually shot a machine gun, but I do understand the concept, it's not rocket science.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

I have a cartridge collection and have both ak-47 and .50 cal rounds so I know the difference. I doubt a lpot of people do though, so now thanks to your picture they will. Still, most people, myself included do think of most fully automatic weapons as machine guns.

Google Image results for "machine gun"

wikipedia: A machine gun is a fully-automatic mounted or portable firearm, usually designed to fire rifle cartridges in quick succession from an ammunition belt or large-capacity magazine

So most people are going to think of a AK-47 as a machine gun and it's kind of silly IMO to think of them as not being a machine gun. They may not be a heavy machine gun but they are machine guns none the less.

People can think of it as that all they want, but it does not make it true. Also, AK-47's do not have (well, generally) ammunition belts or drums. They can't fire on automatic for any length of time, and are therefore NOT mg's.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

So says the armchair general. Based on your post I would assume you are not currently serving and therefore have no clue wtf you are talking about.

See the above post. I've never actually shot a machine gun, but I do understand the concept, it's not rocket science.

I was referring to the second part of your post:

I find it hard to understand why you would defend such obivous disregard for the lives of our soldiers that may well be killed with weapons/ammo we provided?

You are acting as if you know what the interests and ideas are of the soldiers, when in fact you don't know what they are.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

I have a cartridge collection and have both ak-47 and .50 cal rounds so I know the difference. I doubt a lpot of people do though, so now thanks to your picture they will. Still, most people, myself included do think of most fully automatic weapons as machine guns.

Google Image results for "machine gun"

wikipedia: A machine gun is a fully-automatic mounted or portable firearm, usually designed to fire rifle cartridges in quick succession from an ammunition belt or large-capacity magazine

So most people are going to think of a AK-47 as a machine gun and it's kind of silly IMO to think of them as not being a machine gun. They may not be a heavy machine gun but they are machine guns none the less.

People can think of it as that all they want, but it does not make it true. Also, AK-47's do not have (well, generally) ammunition belts or drums. They can't fire on automatic for any length of time, and are therefore NOT mg's.

So the pentagon only lost track of 200,000 AK-47's, most of them likely fully automatic, but it's OK because they aren't "real" machine guns?? OK then, your OPINION is duly noted and registered.

I do have some advice for you though, don't go modifing your AR or AK to shoot fully automatic. Macnine guns are illegal unless properly licensed/acquired.

Try modifying a rifle in the US to fire fully automatic and then tell the BAT&F that it's not a machine gun and then get back to me on that.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

So says the armchair general. Based on your post I would assume you are not currently serving and therefore have no clue wtf you are talking about.

See the above post. I've never actually shot a machine gun, but I do understand the concept, it's not rocket science.

I was referring to the second part of your post:

I find it hard to understand why you would defend such obivous disregard for the lives of our soldiers that may well be killed with weapons/ammo we provided?

You are acting as if you know what the interests and ideas are of the soldiers, when in fact you don't know what they are.

SO your position is that 200,000 unacounted guns (machnine or otherwise) is a good thing for the average US soldier in Iraq? Go take a chill pill, drink some kool-aid, or whatever it is you do

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Skoorb

While 200,000 seems like an awful lot to me, the basic premise of losing a whole bunch of weapons in that hellhole in this situation isn't at all shocking.

Is it not shocking to you because you know the war is mismanaged at so many levels?

200k seems shocking because it is. This is a country with a population of only 25 million, so that really is quite a damn lot of machine guns.

I didnt see any machine guns mentioned in the report. 😕

Majority are Glock pistols and some AK variant which are automatics.

AK is not a machine gun.

But they are most likely fully automatic wepaons.

I find it hard to understand why you would defend such obivous disregard for the lives of our soldiers that may well be killed with weapons/ammo we provided?

Im not defending it. I think its pretty stupid that they would allow these weapons to simply go missing. Fully auto weapon does not translate into a machine gun, however. Saying "machine gun" implies something like this, or this.. Typically, machine guns are squad support weapons that are mounted on a bi-pod or a tri-pod, and fire several hundred rounds a minute.

The AK-47 is definately not a machine gun, even though it fires full-auto. It cannot fire the amount of rounds a minute that a machine gun can, it does not have a bi-pod support, and the size of the rounds are not nearly large enough for squad support. This weapon is classified as a "rifle" or, an "assault rifle". Even the original post calls them "rifles"

"a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge. " -- assault rifle definition


But I guess peoples definitions differ. Some say just full-auto is classified as a machine gun, but if thats the case then really small-caliber machine pistols would be machine guns.
Text

And there is a BIG difference between an MP5 and a .50cal.


**EDIT**

Text

The AK round is in the middle, and the .50cal "machine gun" round is on the end. You can see the big (no pun intended 😛) difference.

I have a cartridge collection and have both ak-47 and .50 cal rounds so I know the difference. I doubt a lpot of people do though, so now thanks to your picture they will. Still, most people, myself included do think of most fully automatic weapons as machine guns.

Google Image results for "machine gun"

wikipedia: A machine gun is a fully-automatic mounted or portable firearm, usually designed to fire rifle cartridges in quick succession from an ammunition belt or large-capacity magazine

So most people are going to think of a AK-47 as a machine gun and it's kind of silly IMO to think of them as not being a machine gun. They may not be a heavy machine gun but they are machine guns none the less.

Just because a google image search of "machine gun" brings up pictures of submachine guns, doesnt make them machine guns. Likewise, just because a lot of people think full auto = machine gun, doesnt make it so.

The definition you linked from wikipedia even disqualifies the AK-47 from being a machine gun. "ammunition belt or large-capacity magazine". The AK-47 neither has an ammo belt (refer to the .50 cal pic) or a large-capacity magazine (30 round mag is not large).

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: nick1985
Incorrect sir. I am not enlisting, I plan on being commissioned. Thanks for the statement regarding my ignorant beliefs though, I appreciate it. :thumbsup:

Fixed.

Personal attack?

Anyhow, I think the fact that you would quote me and change the words around like that says a lot about your character.

You called my statement ignorant first, lest you forget.

I noticed you've been waving the "personal attack" flag of surrender quite often in P&N.

If you consider my comments "attacks", I don't think the military is the right place for your fragile personality.

 

[dahunan]

Why is this thread about Machine Guns vs AK-47s .. instead of the level of incompetence it takes to have a team built consisting of people who can make mistakes like this?