NationStates Jolt Archive

It appears that this little mystery may be solved. All thanks to a little local ABC news affiliate who's reporter just happened to be imbedded with the 101st division in question.. and thankfully just happen to have a photo- journalist along for the ride. It would appear at this point this has been the best evidence to come to light since this story broke on Monday and it isn't good news for Bush! Kerry's charges are correct. Keep in mind that oil fields were given level one priority, yet these weapon depots were just left and the servicemen told to "leave them alone" It also just happened to be after the fall of Baghdad.

Case Solved? (http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3740.html?cat=1)

More... (http://www.kstp.com/)

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I just saw video from this tape on Countdown. April 18th, and the IAEA-wrapped boxes of explosives were still there.

So, what's the difference between when Bush and Kerry jump to conclusions? When the facts come in, Kerry is proven right.

Nice job by Guiliani blaming the troops too, but that's another story.

Yay local news!

Weren't those the same reports that Bush kept pointing to, saying the crew found no explosives there when they arrived??? Frankly, I'm at a loss for words. The sheer nerve of them to think they can get away with such blatant lies...and they usually do.

Bush is kick down yet another notch.

Weren't those the same reports that Bush kept pointing to, saying the crew found no explosives there when they arrived??? Frankly, I'm at a loss for words. The sheer nerve of them to think they can get away with such blatant lies...and they usually do.

Now, my friends, the shit will really hit the fan. Bush's people were rushed about this and did a sloppier job of covering up and speaking with a disciplined single voice than they usually do. More chinks in the armor. This is big.

Kerry '04

What do I have to say on the explosives case? I've said it before. But anyhow, what I really love is that this would be a huge non-issue if the election wasn't just inches away. And of course, non of us can ever hope to change anyone's mind by now, so I find it futile to make threads so politically charged.

No one here is likely to change their minds. What effect will it have on the undecided and the not firmly entrenched?

What do I have to say on the explosives case? I've said it before. But anyhow, what I really love is that this would be a huge non-issue if the election wasn't just inches away. And of course, non of us can ever hope to change anyone's mind by now, so I find it futile to make threads so politically charged.
I don't think this would have been a non-issue at all. 380 tons of explosives is a huge deal. A single pound of this stuff can take down an airliner. And now there's 380 TONS that are mysteriously gone. Where do you think they are? Does anybody honestly believe they are NOT on the black market now and in the hands of terrorists?

No one here is likely to change their minds. What effect will it have on the undecided and the not firmly entrenched?
Honey, there are no undecideds left. All polls taken today are within the margin of error. At least all prior polls showed one candidate or another maintaining a lead, however slight.

What do I have to say on the explosives case? I've said it before. But anyhow, what I really love is that this would be a huge non-issue if the election wasn't just inches away. And of course, non of us can ever hope to change anyone's mind by now, so I find it futile to make threads so politically charged.

I believe this is the poster child example of what people have been saying since May of 2003, they didn't plan for the war, they were incompetent in their planning and they botched the whole damn thing. Not the only reason but one of the huge reasons which I think we can say with some facts to back it up now..they didn't put in enough troops. They can't blame the soldiers, soldiers just follow orders. This is incompetence at the highest level of the civilian leadership. Bush does not deserve a second term. He has lied to the American people and the world and doesn't it make you wonder what else he's lying about? I mean how could it not?

I don't think this would have been a non-issue at all. 380 tons of explosives is a huge deal. A single pound of this stuff can take down an airliner. And now there's 380 TONS that are mysteriously gone. Where do you think they are? Does anybody honestly believe they are NOT on the black market now and in the hands of terrorists?

And now we know it happened on their watch. We also know they desperately lied about it. This is conclusive stuff, folks. They've directly and knowingly lied. Not exaggerated the truth. No misrepresented numbers. Not cherry picked facts. They lied.

Done. Bush is a one-termer. The undecideds will decide, and it doesn't look good for Bush.

Honey, there are no undecideds left. All polls taken today are within the margin of error. At least all prior polls showed one candidate or another maintaining a lead, however slight.
Like hell they did. Most of the polls in the past month or so that I've seen have been within the margin of error.

I don't think this would have been a non-issue at all. 380 tons of explosives is a huge deal. A single pound of this stuff can take down an airliner. And now there's 380 TONS that are mysteriously gone. Where do you think they are? Does anybody honestly believe they are NOT on the black market now and in the hands of terrorists?
I do believe they are on the black market. I just don't know how they disappeared. It'd be nearly impossible to move that many explosives out of a site without our knowing. Personally, however, I don't know why those sites weren't bombed during the war. What is this new policy of preserving munitions dumps?

What do I have to say on the explosives case? I've said it before. But anyhow, what I really love is that this would be a huge non-issue if the election wasn't just inches away. And of course, non of us can ever hope to change anyone's mind by now, so I find it futile to make threads so politically charged.
Really? A non-issue? No one would care that not only where we unable to find WMDs that we said we knew where they where, we weren't even able to secure explosives that we knew exactly where they were? We'd just let that go? Is that the story you want to stick by? Because, you know, before the election year there was the largest protest in world history about this war-so I guess I can see where a pattern of letting things slide was coming from-unless you are talking about the free pass the press gave the administration.....

And, even though I have a pocket theory that the elections are artificially close, the polls still seem to be fluctuating. Karl Rove isn't giving up, hieghtening his efforts in the last 72 hours-but I see, we should just give up. Yeah, no. Not happening.

I believe this is the poster child example of what people have been saying since May of 2003, they didn't plan for the war, they were incompetent in their planning and they botched the whole damn thing. Not the only reason but one of the huge reasons which I think we can say with some facts to back it up now..they didn't put in enough troops. They can't blame the soldiers, soldiers just follow orders. This is incompetence at the highest level of the civilian leadership. Bush does not deserve a second term. He has lied to the American people and the world and doesn't it make you wonder what else he's lying about? I mean how could it not?
If he told the truth, the world would hate him. You know what I believe the real motives of the war were, yet the world wouldn't accept it. Our minds have not moved past the Cold War era, where violence is unthinkable, or even a removal of the status quo.

Honey, there are no undecideds left. All polls taken today are within the margin of error. At least all prior polls showed one candidate or another maintaining a lead, however slight.

Oh, every poll has anywhere from 3-5% undecided voters, sometimes more. Furthermore, pollsters sometimes poll people about how firm their choice is, and it turns out that around 5% of each candidate's voters have decided, but are persuadable.

Hence, there is a 15% group in America that could potentially be swayed.

Plus you add in all the first-time voters and the young voters who never show up in polls (this election is likely to have a turnout bigger than any in recent history,) and you have a perfect storm set up for a Bush defeat.

What do I have to say on the explosives case? I've said it before. But anyhow, what I really love is that this would be a huge non-issue if the election wasn't just inches away. And of course, non of us can ever hope to change anyone's mind by now, so I find it futile to make threads so politically charged.
yup this is just the kind of last minute thing that can tip the scale on an election. and the best part about it is that its TRUE. how often does THAT happen?

kerry needs to keep at it, anything to make people wake up to reality. i dont mind (so much) an honest loss but it makes me crazy to know that so many bush supporters beliefs about iraq are flat out wrong.

I do believe they are on the black market. I just don't know how they disappeared. It'd be nearly impossible to move that many explosives out of a site without our knowing. Personally, however, I don't know why those sites weren't bombed during the war. What is this new policy of preserving munitions dumps?
The problem is, it's a HUGE site (about 17 acres I believe), and they certainly could have disappeared without our knowing...they obviously did. We were there on April 10th, but it was described as just a "pit stop." The troops soon afterward picked up and left and didn't come back, leaving it totally unguarded...actually LESS secure than when they came, since they went around cutting locks to take a peek around. And as you read in the article, there were random Iraqis (whom the soldiers had no idea who they were) just driving around while they were there too. I agree the place should have been destroyed, but only after troops went there to verify the explosives were still there. The team that was there should have been ordered to secure the area, do a thorough inspection to make sure everything was there, and then clear everybody the hell out and call in aristrikes to level the place.

Oh, every poll has anywhere from 3-5% undecided voters, sometimes more. Furthermore, pollsters sometimes poll people about how firm their choice is, and it turns out that around 5% of each candidate's voters have decided, but are persuadable.

Hence, there is a 15% group in America that could potentially be swayed.

Plus you add in all the first-time voters and the young voters who never show up in polls (this election is likely to have a turnout bigger than any in recent history,) and you have a perfect storm set up for a Bush defeat.
Or a Bush victory, of course :).
But anyhow, there are some undecideds, but not many, and clearly not as many as there used to be. Furthermore, only the political diehards like using this particular website.

Furthermore, only the political diehards like using this particular website.

Maybe so.. but millions watch the news!

The problem is, it's a HUGE site (about 17 acres I believe), and they certainly could have disappeared without our knowing...they obviously did. We were there on April 10th, but it was described as just a "pit stop." The troops soon afterward picked up and left and didn't come back, leaving it totally unguarded...actually LESS secure than when they came, since they went around cutting locks to take a peek around. And as you read in the article, there were random Iraqis (whom the soldiers had no idea who they were) just driving around while they were there too. I agree the place should have been destroyed, but only after troops went there to verify the explosives were still there. The team that was there should have been ordered to secure the area, do a thorough inspection to make sure everything was there, and then clear everybody the hell out and call in aristrikes to level the place.
I think there should have been airstrikes, but in every responsible party's defense, there were over eighty such sites in Iraq. Plus, there were dams to protect, roads, oilfields, nuclear sites, and plenty more. That's also in addition to looting. Still, I feel that the troop levels were about adequate. Ten years ago, far larger problems would've developed if the US invaded a comparable country with those troop levels.

Hmm maybe I missed the part where it said that they had photos of the actual explosives in question. I had heard that there was a large amount of other explosives. The two types that are most dangerous was supposedly not there.

Did I miss the picture that was of the two types?

I'll read it again. Maybe I just missed that part.

I think there should have been airstrikes, but in every responsible party's defense, there were over eighty such sites in Iraq. Plus, there were dams to protect, roads, oilfields, nuclear sites, and plenty more. That's also in addition to looting. Still, I feel that the troop levels were about adequate. Ten years ago, far larger problems would've developed if the US invaded a comparable country with those troop levels.
Please explain why you think the troop levels were adequate, when they didn't have enough to put aside to guard a mojr munitions dump that they knew about going into the war. Also, many senior military officials have gone on record saying there weren't enough troops, and that Bush and Rumsfeld basically thought they should do it with less than the military wanted to prove a point that they could get it done with minimal troops. They disregarded the professional advice of their own military officers. If you ask me, they didn't do a very good job at getting it done. Mission accomplished, indeed.

Ok there is no proof yet that the bunkers contained the HMX and RDX and PETN explosives.

5 EYEWITNESS NEWS and experts across the country are working to learn more from these pictures and find out exactly just how close they were to Al Qaqaa.

A 5 Eyewitness News crew in Iraq may have been just a door away from materials that could be used to detonate nuclear weapons. The evidence is in videotape shot by Reporter Dean Staley and Photographer Joe Caffrey at or near the Al Qaqaa munitions facility.

So until they report that the containers in question are them I consider it still up in the air.

Thanks for the info..

I think there should have been airstrikes, but in every responsible party's defense, there were over eighty such sites in Iraq. Plus, there were dams to protect, roads, oilfields, nuclear sites, and plenty more. That's also in addition to looting. Still, I feel that the troop levels were about adequate. Ten years ago, far larger problems would've developed if the US invaded a comparable country with those troop levels.
well YEAH, new, this is WHY is bush's fault. its not incompetence on the part of our military, its being stretched to thin to get it all taken care of properly. (although they did blow up several ammo dumps)

what the F would have happened if there HAD been wmd in iraq? would our soldiers have to wear biohazard suits just to survive the anthrax being tossed at them by children in the streets??

Please explain why you think the troop levels were adequate, when they didn't have enough to put aside to guard a mojr munitions dump that they knew about going into the war. Also, many senior military officials have gone on record saying there weren't enough troops, and that Bush and Rumsfeld basically thought they should do it with less than the military wanted to prove a point that they could get it done with minimal troops. They disregarded the professional advice of their own military officers. If you ask me, they didn't do a very good job at getting it done. Mission accomplished, indeed.
Because they were able to successfully invade, and neutralize major enemy forces. The major mistake was not the part of the US military, but postwar planning. The security forces weren't maintained, and were rebuilt only when it was getting messy. However, you must agree with me that no really major insurgent attacks happened between May and November of that year, so I consider it a success. Also, we're new to this. Iraq is easy because it goes our way no matter what happens (I have a theory on that, btw). However, now we know what to do if we need to overthrow a regime in the future.
As for troop levels, I was reading an interesting book by a Navy analyst, The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas Barnett. According to it, the military culture is stuck in the Cold War. They haven't updated, yet. One of the reasons, in fact, that neocons are so contraversial is because their military vision is too far reaching for our Cold War minds.

well YEAH, new, this is WHY is bush's fault. its not incompetence on the part of our military, its being stretched to thin to get it all taken care of properly. (although they did blow up several ammo dumps)
Good. And no, they didn't stretch us thin, if you ask me. Just the active duty componet, but there were reserves. If you think that's unfair, why did the reservists sign up in the first place?

this would be a huge non-issue if the election wasn't just inches away

No ... this would still be a big deal. A really big deal. 380 tons of explosives going missing is not a partisan issue. It becomes a partisan issue when our President, the person we're supposed to trust more than anyone else on the planet, stands up on TV and tells us how much safer the world is and how much better off we are and then this happens.

Hmm maybe I missed the part where it said that they had photos of the actual explosives in question. I had heard that there was a large amount of other explosives. The two types that are most dangerous was supposedly not there.

Did I miss the picture that was of the two types?

I'll read it again. Maybe I just missed that part.


So - you are saying that you recognize the explosives found as being something different?


Or is it that you think that Iraq forged IAEA seals on other bunkers for the fun of it?



Or are you just happy that they left everything as it was and left it, and when they got back a month or two later it was all gone?


Ok there is no proof yet that the bunkers contained the HMX and RDX and PETN explosives.

Quote:
5 EYEWITNESS NEWS and experts across the country are working to learn more from these pictures and find out exactly just how close they were to Al Qaqaa.

Quote:
A 5 Eyewitness News crew in Iraq may have been just a door away from materials that could be used to detonate nuclear weapons. The evidence is in videotape shot by Reporter Dean Staley and Photographer Joe Caffrey at or near the Al Qaqaa munitions facility.


So until they report that the containers in question are them I consider it still up in the air.

Thanks for the info..


The fact that the embed can't state definitively what part of the complex he was in is actually honesty on his part, although he believes that he was in al qaqaa from what the troops said, and at least one of the pictures clearly states al qaqaa. His GPS readings will verify it one way or the other.

Bear in mind that after the Giraldo incident during the invasion the embeds were undoubtable fed less precise information by the troops to cover their own asses.

there is no indication that the explosives in the photo are HMX or RDX, and in fact they are probably not since they don't have IAEA labels. remember, Iraq had 400,000 tons of ammunition explosives stored at various sites.

the fact that no guard detachment was left on the site on april 3rd when a 3ID team first visited it is very simple to explain... "concentration of forces" is a basic military principle, and if you ignore that and leave small detached forces you invite a "defeat in detail". remember that on that same day there was heavy fighting only 4 miles away, on the approaches to Baghdad airport. the front lines had just shifted so the Al Qaqaa depot was in US-controlled territory, but it was chaos and mayhem all around. would *you* leave a squad or two in an exposed position where they could be wiped out by a counterattack? especially when the nearby city (Yousefiah) was still controlled by Iraqi forces of unknown strength? hell no.

there was no need to guard the site anyway, since any large movement of material would have been immediately detected by aerial surveilance. sure, a couple of guys could have snuck around in a pickup and grabbed a few hundred pounds, but there is no way in hell that a convoy would load and move the 380 tons without getting some serious attention from above.

there is no indication that the explosives in the photo are HMX or RDX, and in fact they are probably not since they don't have IAEA labels. remember, Iraq had 400,000 tons of ammunition explosives stored at various sites.

the fact that no guard detachment was left on the site on april 3rd when a 3ID team first visited it is very simple to explain... "concentration of forces" is a basic military principle, and if you ignore that and leave small detached forces you invite a "defeat in detail". remember that on that same day there was heavy fighting only 4 miles away, on the approaches to Baghdad airport. the front lines had just shifted so the Al Qaqaa depot was in US-controlled territory, but it was chaos and mayhem all around. would *you* leave a squad or two in an exposed position where they could be wiped out by a counterattack? especially when the nearby city (Yousefiah) was still controlled by Iraqi forces of unknown strength? hell no.

there was no need to guard the site anyway, since any large movement of material would have been immediately detected by aerial surveilance. sure, a couple of guys could have snuck around in a pickup and grabbed a few hundred pounds, but there is no way in hell that a convoy would load and move the 380 tons without getting some serious attention from above.

Notice the IAEA seals on the doors.

No ... this would still be a big deal. A really big deal. 380 tons of explosives going missing is not a partisan issue. It becomes a partisan issue when our President, the person we're supposed to trust more than anyone else on the planet, stands up on TV and tells us how much safer the world is and how much better off we are and then this happens.
I think that if we sacrificed safety for a few years, so be it. This wiil ultimatly have the effect of a liberally democratic Middle East, and eliminate Islamic fundementalism. It has worked everywhere it has been tried, and has found amazing sucess in the past half century. The Middle East is the last holdout, and that is producing bad results. It needs to change.

Because they were able to successfully invade, and neutralize major enemy forces. The major mistake was not the part of the US military, but postwar planning. The security forces weren't maintained, and were rebuilt only when it was getting messy. However, you must agree with me that no really major insurgent attacks happened between May and November of that year, so I consider it a success. Also, we're new to this. Iraq is easy because it goes our way no matter what happens (I have a theory on that, btw). However, now we know what to do if we need to overthrow a regime in the future.
As for troop levels, I was reading an interesting book by a Navy analyst, The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas Barnett. According to it, the military culture is stuck in the Cold War. They haven't updated, yet. One of the reasons, in fact, that neocons are so contraversial is because their military vision is too far reaching for our Cold War minds.
From what I remember, the Iraqi army basically just put up token resistance to the U.S. forces until they got close to Baghdad.
In regard to postwar planning, that's the whole reason we didn't go into Baghdad the first time around. Bush Sr. was quoted as saying we didn't take out Saddam because THERE WAS NO VIABLE EXIT STRATEGY.
what the F would have happened if there HAD been wmd in iraq? would our soldiers have to wear biohazard suits just to survive the anthrax being tossed at them by children in the streets??
I have heard, don't know how true it is but here goes. The U.S. troops in this Iraq war didn't wear biohazard suits when advancing across the desert, even though they did in Gulf War 1. Doesn't that imply the administration knew the Iraqis didn't have bio/chemical weapons going into the war?

What does this prove? It does prove that after the fall of Baghdad that troops were finding warehouses full of explosives and just leaving them unsecured. Given that, it doesn't really matter what those explosives were, it only matters that the story that the troops were being told to "leave them alone" and move on proves that many warehouses of explosives were never secured and got looted. It proves that explosive caches were in fact there and not secured after the invasion which totally discredits Bush & co's assumptions. They lied and they knew it!

I think that if we sacrificed safety for a few years, so be it. This wiil ultimatly have the effect of a liberally democratic Middle East, and eliminate Islamic fundementalism. It has worked everywhere it has been tried, and has found amazing sucess in the past half century. The Middle East is the last holdout, and that is producing bad results. It needs to change.
Worked everywhere it's been tried? Amazing results??? Anyone care to help me out here and point out all the other times we tried overthrowing another government and putting up another one, and how they ended up? There's a long history of it failing miserably. (many in Central America)

From what I remember, the Iraqi army basically just put up token resistance to the U.S. forces until they got close to Baghdad.
In regard to postwar planning, that's the whole reason we didn't go into Baghdad the first time around. Bush Sr. was quoted as saying we didn't take out Saddam because THERE WAS NO VIABLE EXIT STRATEGY.


How sad it was that the USSR still existed then. The Cold War was litterally months away from ending, yet the USSR, Iraq's main patron, still existed. There were fears of a resurrgent Soviet Union right until the end, and if we invaded Iraq, they may have returned our favor for them in Afghanistan. Had the war been a bit later, then Bush Sr, being the brilliant man that he was, would've taken Baghdad, and the issurgency would only be like the one we're facing now, not the Viet Cong type resistance.

Notice the IAEA seals on the doors.

Yes, I missed those since I was looking at another story.

Okay, however now we're also hearing that during the March survey IAEA found only 3 tons of RDX, and did not specifically inspect the HMX since that bunker had an intact seal. However the seal is useless since there were ventilation openings through which the HMX could have been easily removed.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304

This is turning into a real Sherlock Holmes mystery.

Yes, I missed those since I was looking at another story.

Okay, however now we're also hearing that during the March survey IAEA found only 3 tons of RDX, and did not specifically inspect the HMX since that bunker had an intact seal. However the seal is useless since there were ventilation openings through which the HMX could have been easily removed.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304

This is turning into a real Sherlock Holmes mystery.
Whoa, whoa, whoa...hold it right there...ventilation openings? I don't know what kind of "ventilation openings" they have in Iraq, but I'd bet you can't remove many tons of something through them very easily at all :)

Worked everywhere it's been tried? Amazing results??? Anyone care to help me out here and point out all the other times we tried overthrowing another government and putting up another one, and how they ended up? There's a long history of it failing miserably. (many in Central America)
I'm not reffering to that. I'm reffering to something I've written threads about before, but I need to reexplain. In brief, liberal democracy has been amazing. Applied with or without US help, it has worked, particularly in Pantagonia, Asia, and Europe. It has led to economic success, and a more peaceful, less radical society. While not explicitly endorsing terrorism, Saddam Hussein upheld the status quo. Iraq was the most capable country of being a model for liberal democracy: a nice middle class, fairly industrialized, and a solid natural resource base. Saddam refused to tap into these resources. Invading any other country would've been too hard to establish a model, so it had to be Iraq. In twenty years, Iraq will win the GWOT for us. That's my theory in brief, as I'm too tired to type more.

Yes, I missed those since I was looking at another story.

Okay, however now we're also hearing that during the March survey IAEA found only 3 tons of RDX, and did not specifically inspect the HMX since that bunker had an intact seal. However the seal is useless since there were ventilation openings through which the HMX could have been easily removed.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304

This is turning into a real Sherlock Holmes mystery.

Yes, but then later today this came out (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=5&u=/ap/20041028/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_weapons_iaea)

I'm not reffering to that. I'm reffering to something I've written threads about before, but I need to reexplain. In brief, liberal democracy has been amazing. Applied with or without US help, it has worked, particularly in Pantagonia, Asia, and Europe. It has led to economic success, and a more peaceful, less radical society. While not explicitly endorsing terrorism, Saddam Hussein upheld the status quo. Iraq was the most capable country of being a model for liberal democracy: a nice middle class, fairly industrialized, and a solid natural resource base. Saddam refused to tap into these resources. Invading any other country would've been too hard to establish a model, so it had to be Iraq. In twenty years, Iraq will win the GWOT for us. That's my theory in brief, as I'm too tired to type more.
What the deuce is Pantagonia? I've never heard of any area referred by that name before.
And I don't see how choosing the most "stable" country and invading it "in the name of democracy" would help to stabilize anything.

Honey, there are no undecideds left. All polls taken today are within the margin of error. At least all prior polls showed one candidate or another maintaining a lead, however slight.
My mother and a friend of mine are undecided.

How sad it was that the USSR still existed then. The Cold War was litterally months away from ending, yet the USSR, Iraq's main patron, still existed. There were fears of a resurrgent Soviet Union right until the end, and if we invaded Iraq, they may have returned our favor for them in Afghanistan. Had the war been a bit later, then Bush Sr, being the brilliant man that he was, would've taken Baghdad, and the issurgency would only be like the one we're facing now, not the Viet Cong type resistance.

Uhm, what? Care to get some backing for this?

With the problems Russia was having in east europe, and russia itself, it was in no position to go help iraq. Detente was in full force, and gorbachev(It was old gorby in 91, right?) wasn't exactly eager to fight with the US. Russia was a major factor, it pressured iraq to leave kuwait, and it actually succeeded...though america decided we better invade anyways, and bomb the roads out of kuwait so they couldn't leave...

America wasn't that worried about russian-backed insurgency. They worried about insurgency alone.

What the deuce is Pantagonia? I've never heard of any area referred by that name before.
And I don't see how choosing the most "stable" country and invading it "in the name of democracy" would help to stabilize anything.
Invading it was only required to remove the regime and install some rights. The rest happens naturally. John Locke said that the three rights of life, liberty, and property are inalienable, and accepted by all. Has the Communist party been able to stop undercurrents of democracy and the rule of law in China, now that it has relaxed economic restrictions? The same idea should be applied here. Give the Iraqis rights, and a market system should form, creating an open and ultimatly innovative society. Then gradually introduce them to democracy, and they'll get the hang of it.
And btw, Pantagonia is a region in South America that includes Chile, Argentina, and Uraguay. Brazil is just like these other three countries, but is not in Pantagonia.

Worked everywhere it's been tried? Amazing results??? Anyone care to help me out here and point out all the other times we tried overthrowing another government and putting up another one, and how they ended up? There's a long history of it failing miserably. (many in Central America)

since 1940

Japan - success
Germany - success
Italy - success
Nazi-occupied Europe - success
South Korea - success
Taiwan - success
Iran - failure
El Salvador - success
Nicaragua - success
Guatemala - up in the air
Grenada - success
Panama - success
Somalia - success (mostly)
Bosnia/Kosovo - success (mostly)

and

Afghanistan - success (still working on it)
Iraq - success (still working on it)

Uhm, what? Care to get some backing for this?

With the problems Russia was having in east europe, and russia itself, it was in no position to go help iraq. Detente was in full force, and gorbachev(It was old gorby in 91, right?) wasn't exactly eager to fight with the US. Russia was a major factor, it pressured iraq to leave kuwait, and it actually succeeded...though america decided we better invade anyways, and bomb the roads out of kuwait so they couldn't leave...

America wasn't that worried about russian-backed insurgency. They worried about insurgency alone.
Well, most of the Iraqi military hardware was Russian, and that wasn't sold on the black market. Rather, it was supplied by Russia.
As for Russia, like I said, generals were very worried about a resurgent Russia. The coup, while short lived, confirmed their fears.

Okay, this is not on topic, please get back on topic or start your own thread.

Thank You.
Stephanie
Game Moderator

I have heard, don't know how true it is but here goes. The U.S. troops in this Iraq war didn't wear biohazard suits when advancing across the desert, even though they did in Gulf War 1. Doesn't that imply the administration knew the Iraqis didn't have bio/chemical weapons going into the war?

We did wear our MOPP suits. There were several times when we had to mask up also. There were no stockpiles found, but I personally saw small amounts of chemical weapons.

since 1940

Japan - success
Germany - success
Italy - success
Nazi-occupied Europe - success
South Korea - success
Taiwan - success
Iran - failure
El Salvador - success
Nicaragua - success Smilies
Guatemala - up in the air
Grenada - success
Panama - success
Somalia - success (mostly)
Bosnia/Kosovo - success (mostly)

and

Afghanistan - success (still working on it)
Iraq - success (still working on it)
Don't forget the myriad of countries affected by these successes. The only one I'd change, btw, is Somalia. It is really now an anarchy, but we should support the Mogadishu based government. After all, as terrorists loose the Middle East, Africa, particularly a nation as Islamic as Somalia, will be ripe for terrorists, as they try recruiting there.

Okay, this is not on topic, please get back on topic or start your own thread.

Thank You.
Stephanie
Game Moderator

;)

Yes, but then later today this came out (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=5&u=/ap/20041028/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_weapons_iaea)

Curioser and curioser. Okay, suppose the RDX was really at Al-Mahaweel. This still doesn't explain how 380 tons can be moved without attracting attention.

I've always thought this story was bullshit. These explosives are not super-powerful like the media has tried to make them sound, they are comparable to common military explosives. We have collected and destroyed over a thousand times as many explosives and ammunition, and there are almost certainly thousands of tons more that we've never even found yet. Why make a big deal of this now?

Everyone seems to be making one big assumption... that the IAEA is trustworthy. I personally have grave doubts about that. ElBaradei and the us Dept of State have had very prominent disagreements, and we are trying to get him replaced. The attempt to influence the election by relasing this story right now is suggestive of an agenda, to put it mildly. Who is the IAEA really working for? If they would do something underhanded like this, why not just lie about everything?

Curioser and curioser. Okay, suppose the RDX was really at Al-Mahaweel. This still doesn't explain how 380 tons can be moved without attracting attention.

I've always thought this story was bullshit. These explosives are not super-powerful like the media has tried to make them sound, they are comparable to common military explosives. We have collected and destroyed over a thousand times as many explosives and ammunition, and there are almost certainly thousands of tons more that we've never even found yet. Why make a big deal of this now?

Everyone seems to be making one big assumption... that the IAEA is trustworthy. I personally have grave doubts about that. ElBaradei and the us Dept of State have had very prominent disagreements, and we are trying to get him replaced. The attempt to influence the election by relasing this story right now is suggestive of an agenda, to put it mildly. Who is the IAEA really working for? If they would do something underhanded like this, why not just lie about everything?

Well the difference I think is that these weapon caches that were found that the article reported on were found and they told them to just leave them alone and left them unsecured.. that's a big deal.

Believe what you wish I suppose about the IAEA and El Baradei, however I suspect the world trusts them and him a lot more then they do George Bush these days. America has lost a lot of credibility and prestige in the world. Love America, hate America it's a fact that can't be denied.

Well the difference I think is that these weapon caches that were found that the article reported on were found and they told them to just leave them alone and left them unsecured.. that's a big deal.

It's very easy to be an armchair general. What would *you* have done about it? Consider that there are 80 or so sites of the same size as this one, and tens of thousands of smaller caches.

Some possibilities:

- you would post small guard detachments at each site (problem: they are an obvious sitting-duck target unless they are large enough to repel any potential attack - which practically means a battalion or larger. problem: how many people do you need to cover the perimeter of an 18-acre site? problem: how many people would you need for all the sites that exist?)

- you would destroy any caches right away by bombing them (problem: there may be nuclear/chemical/biological materials stored there mixed with conventional munitions, so that if you explode them they could contaminate a large area. problem: if they are destroyed, you will never know what was there).

- you would rely on aerial and satellite surveilance and possibly emplaced ground sensors - optical, acoustic, vibration, etc. (problem: there will almost certainly be small-scale looting)

If I was going to be an armchair general, I would pick the third option. It seems that's what our military did. However, I realize enough about the friction/fog of war to realize that I have *no idea* what would have been the optimal course, and that I have *no idea* what they actually did.

I would think they would do a better job than me, in any case. Especially since they would be highly motivated to seize all the weapons that could be used against them.

It's very easy to be an armchair general. What would *you* have done about it? Consider that there are 80 or so sites of the same size as this one, and tens of thousands of smaller caches.

Personally, I probably would of listened to the Generals like General Shinseki and the others who told me I needed to send in more troops instead of putting them out to pasture and ignoring any one who didn't agree with me. But heck, that's just me!

Case Solved?


NO!

This does not prove that oer 300 tons of HMX, or RDx were there when the soldiers arrived. Good try.

NO!

This does not prove that oer 300 tons of HMX, or RDx were there when the soldiers arrived. Good try.
If the IAEA seals weren't touched, did it magically dissipate into the air?

NO!

This does not prove that oer 300 tons of HMX, or RDx were there when the soldiers arrived. Good try.

It sure looks like proof to me. But as you said.. Nice try on YOUR part. Did you even look at the pics? It has the name right on the crate. Further, as I said before, it doesn't negate that they just left it there and left it unsecured. Thank Gosh for pictures!

It's very easy to be an armchair general. What would *you* have done about it? Consider that there are 80 or so sites of the same size as this one, and tens of thousands of smaller caches.

Some possibilities:

- you would post small guard detachments at each site (problem: they are an obvious sitting-duck target unless they are large enough to repel any potential attack - which practically means a battalion or larger. problem: how many people do you need to cover the perimeter of an 18-acre site? problem: how many people would you need for all the sites that exist?)

- you would destroy any caches right away by bombing them (problem: there may be nuclear/chemical/biological materials stored there mixed with conventional munitions, so that if you explode them they could contaminate a large area. problem: if they are destroyed, you will never know what was there).

- you would rely on aerial and satellite surveilance and possibly emplaced ground sensors - optical, acoustic, vibration, etc. (problem: there will almost certainly be small-scale looting)

If I was going to be an armchair general, I would pick the third option. It seems that's what our military did. However, I realize enough about the friction/fog of war to realize that I have *no idea* what would have been the optimal course, and that I have *no idea* what they actually did.

I would think they would do a better job than me, in any case. Especially since they would be highly motivated to seize all the weapons that could be used against them.

Or four:

Send in a large detachment of troops to hold the place temporarily and build one massive arms stockpile and transfer the explosives to that heavily defended area. (or two or three)

Or four:

Send in a large detachment of troops to hold the place temporarily and build one massive arms stockpile and transfer the explosives to that heavily defended area. (or two or three)

Hey, the way it looks, any plan at all would of been nice. Since it appears quite obvious that they didn't have one! Oh sorry, yes they did have a plan, I believe it involved Iraqi's throwing flowers at their feet.. :rolleyes:

I'm beginning to see a very different real story come out here. It's not about the explosives which are a piddling issue in any case. It's about the media.

One: some news orgs are still willing to run with a very poorly researched story based on a tip from a dubious source as long as it fits their agenda. anything that will help their candidate, even if it destroys their reputation. this is rather-gate all over again. even if the story turns out to be true, it was not remotely close to being sufficiently researched by CBS and NYT. the decision by CBS to try to hold the story until just before the election is also atrocious.

Two: NGOs have their own agenda, which may be hostile to the United States. in this case IAEA is almost certainly acting on their agenda. they should be called on it.

Three: fact-checking and investigative reporting proceed at light-speed. NBC, ABC and lots of bloggers have done a great job of it.

Four: unfortunately, most of the followup will not reach as many people as the original story did. so this kind of hack job still has an effect.

Five: in all this - both the original story and the followup - perspective is almost completely absent. quite aside from the fact that this quantity of explosives is insignificant, and quite aside from the fact that leaving the facility without a guard detachment was probably a sound military decision, we don't have a perspective about mistakes. wars consist almost entirely of mistakes and screwups - "war is a series of disasters that results in victory". considering the number of screwups in ww2 for example, it is inconceivable how we could have fought it successfully if the reporting then was the same as now.

It sure looks like proof to me. But as you said.. Nice try on YOUR part. Did you even look at the pics? It has the name right on the crate. Further, as I said before, it doesn't negate that they just left it there and left it unsecured. Thank Gosh for pictures!
What, "explosives"? is that the name? :D You kill me. Read the article, there is no evidence that any of that is RDX or HMX. GOOD TRY!

What, "explosives"? is that the name? :D You kill me. Read the article, there is no evidence that any of that is RDX or HMX. GOOD TRY!

Are you trying to imply they weren't explosives in those pictures? Are you an expert on what RDX or HMX looks like? I think not!

Are you trying to imply they weren't explosives in those pictures? Are you an expert on what RDX or HMX looks like? I think not!
Well, I'll tell you what, come down from canada to Ft. Huachuca, Az. Look me up, and I'll tell you all about RDX, HMX, Saddam and Terorism. You'll go home with grey hair,and a slighty differant dispostion towards my country, instead of the constant slander against me and my nation. You don't know what I am an expert about. You have no idea about me or the United States military.

Well, I'll tell you what, come down from canada to Ft. Huachuca, Az. Look me up, and I'll tell you all about RDX, HMX, Saddam and Terorism. You'll go home with grey hair,and a slighty differant dispostion towards my country, instead of the constant slander against me and my nation. You don't know what I am an expert about. You have no idea about me or the United States military.

If it's possible, you have even less credibility on this forum then Bush does..lol I think I'll pass. I think you scare me in a creepy kind of whacky way. :eek:

"Originally Posted by The Cassini Belt
since 1940

Japan - success
Germany - success
Italy - success
Nazi-occupied Europe - success
South Korea - success
Taiwan - success
Iran - failure
El Salvador - success
Nicaragua - success Smilies
Guatemala - up in the air
Grenada - success
Panama - success
Somalia - success (mostly)
Bosnia/Kosovo - success (mostly)

and

Afghanistan - success (still working on it)
Iraq - success (still working on it)
"


Guatemala 1954-Overthrew democratic governements too "insure democracy" and they had dictators for over 30 years
Nicarauga-Installed Somoza dictatorship that lasted for 40years till 1979
Iraq 1968-installs puppet government
Iran 1954-overthrew government, installed dictator+Secret police(shah) who held power until late 70s when he was overthrown by popular revolt that installed the iatolah(sp?) and have been gradually developing democracy since then.
Chile1973-Overthrew longest running democratic government in S america, supported a coup and murder of the president,installe dictator pinochet who held power and wsuppresed civil liberties in power through late 80s/early 90s
Congo1950s 1960s-US overthrough Democratically elected government and put in a CIA coup

Bed time for me, or I'd write more.

since 1940

Japan - success
Germany - success
Italy - success
Nazi-occupied Europe - success
South Korea - success
Taiwan - success
Iran - failure
El Salvador - success
Nicaragua - success
Guatemala - up in the air
Grenada - success
Panama - success
Somalia - success (mostly)
Bosnia/Kosovo - success (mostly)

and

Afghanistan - success (still working on it)
Iraq - success (still working on it)


Well, Germany and Italy were democracies before they were subverted to fascism and Nazism, so they don't count. Neither does Nazi controlled Europe. We weren't introducing Democracy there, we were restoring it.

Calling Somalia a success is ridiculous, as is calling most of the Central American states you mentioned.

Let me just mention that not a single American soldier was killed in the Kosovo action...and yet so many Bush backers hate Clinton for his military bungling. Whatever.

Or four:

Send in a large detachment of troops to hold the place temporarily and build one massive arms stockpile and transfer the explosives to that heavily defended area. (or two or three)

A large detachment in the environment of Iraq in April 2003 would be a battalion. A company is small enough that there is a very real danger it can be overrun, especially since there were multiple intact divisions of the Republican National Guard in the area. We know that there were about 80 major sites to secure. So you'd need 80 battalions just for that. What you'd actually have is approximately 40 batallions of the 3rd Infantry Division and 1st Marine Division which were advancing in parallel, one through Al Kut and the other through the Karbala Gap. So, in other words, you can either a) secure only half the installations with large detachments and have no forces left to advance or b) secure all the installations with small detachments of a squad or two and expose them to defeat in detail or c) hit as hard and fast as you can while keeping your entire force together, and rely on air surveilance to prevent any large movement of material out of these sites. Yeah, it's easy to be an armchair general especially if you don't even look at the numbers.

As for building a stockpile and transfering the explosives... again, look at the amount of trucks and men required to do that. So far we have actually collected about a hundred thousand tons in stockpiles that we control, and exploded in place another three hundred thousand tons, but it took many months to do that. Again, you do the math... a truck takes 5 tons, 4 hours to load/unload with a crew of 10, travel to holding area and back at 30 mph, 50 trucks to a quartermaster battalion... basically it takes a lot of time and resources to do that, and we did it as soon as it was practical. In April 2003 the challenge was to move ammo and fuel *to* our troops, not to worry about enemy ammo sitting in areas we controlled.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/031104-articles.htm
... look for the part under "The 811th Ordnance Company establishes Ammunition Holding Areas, and is called by V Corps to account for and store all of the Iraqi Captured Ammunition in Taji, Iraq.... Sixty to Eighty truckloads of enemy ammunition arrive daily to Taji." Which gives you an idea of the rate of transportation you can expect to a holding area. As I said, it takes months.

Remember, "Amateurs talk tactics. Professionals talk logistics."

<Bush>If he told the truth, the world would hate him.More than we already do? It'd be hard, you know,but I suppose we could try.

"Originally Posted by The Cassini Belt
since 1940

Japan - success
<snip list>
Iraq - success (still working on it)I notice Vietnam has fallen of somehow.

What do I have to say on the explosives case? I've said it before. But anyhow, what I really love is that this would be a huge non-issue if the election wasn't just inches away. And of course, non of us can ever hope to change anyone's mind by now, so I find it futile to make threads so politically charged.


shut up Republican, you lost.

:D jking

I notice Vietnam has fallen of somehow.

Well, the original question was about setting up democratic governments by force of arms. We certainly never had a chance to see if the government in Vietnam could have worked, since the enemy won (or rather we let them win, since we lost the will to fight).

I would expect that if we had won, Vietnam now would look a lot like South Korea.

This is a pretty good example of what happened to large ammo dumps post-war:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/qayyarah-west.htm

I haven't found a similar article that mentions Al Qaqaa but I imagine it was much the same.

If it's possible, you have even less credibility on this forum then Bush does..lol I think I'll pass. I think you scare me in a creepy kind of whacky way. :eek:
Hey, I am not trying to scare ya. I'm sorry if I did, I'll have my half-canadian wife cook dinner for you and Zep. :) Peace!

As far as my credibilty, big surprise. Far left wing majority here, with far left wing nutjob neolib mods. :eek: I am hated fo rmy beliefs. Sounds like I am not the one wiht the problem, it is the "tolerarant" "progressives".

Hey, I am not trying to scare ya. I'm sorry if I did, I'll have my half-canadian wife cook dinner for you and Zep. :) Peace!

As far as my credibilty, big surprise. Far left wing majority here, with far left wing nutjob neolib mods. :eek: I am hated fo rmy beliefs. Sounds like I am not the one wiht the problem, it is the "tolerarant" "progressives".

Good grief. You know Munkebrain. I know I detect a mischevious and sarcastic sense of humor behind your posts. I'm convinced that you're a moderate or a liberal who is merely role playing. Admit it. :D

Did anyone see Ted Koppel tonight.

He said he was with the Army when they first took the dump, (or at least that's how he made it sound).

Anyway, he claimed that he didn't see any explosives and nor could the C.O. find any, so know one no-one knows what happened. If Ted Koppel is saying something like that, you have to figure the whole thing is B.S.

Did anyone see Ted Koppel tonight.

He said he was with the Army when they first took the dump, (or at least that's how he made it sound).

Anyway, he claimed that he didn't see any explosives and nor could the C.O. find any, so know one no-one knows what happened. If Ted Koppel is saying something like that, you have to figure the whole thing is B.S.

Except for the fact of the video tapes...

Except for the fact of the video tapes...

What video tapes? The ones Koppel showed of him with the soldiers at the depot finding nothing..

I suppose Koppel could be a secret pro-bush partisan hack, but I find that highly unlikely given his almost palpable adulation of John Kerry.

Isn't it just possible perhaps that this story is totally B.S. and Ted Koppel, even though he is a bit of a liberal, also has the integrity to say so about it.

What video tapes? The ones Koppel showed of him with the soldiers at the depot finding nothing..

I suppose Koppel could be a secret pro-bush partisan hack, but I find that highly unlikely given his almost palpable adulation of John Kerry.

Isn't it just possible perhaps that this story is totally B.S. and Ted Koppel, even though he is a bit of a liberal, also has the integrity to say so about it.

Go back to the beginning of this thread, and click on the links from the very first post...or did you add your 2 cents without reading the thread? There is videotape of unbroken seals and drums of explosives taken by a Minneapolis local newschannel's embedded reporter. :rolleyes:

Go back to the beginning of this thread, and click on the links from the very first post...or did you add your 2 cents without reading the thread? There is videotape of unbroken seals and drums of explosives taken by a Minneapolis local newschannel's embedded reporter. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I read that, but that story is at odds with a lot of other unbiased sources (some would even say pro-Kerry if you count Koppel). So isn't there even just the chance that the affiliate is wrong?

Or is that completely impossible and Ted Koppel is lying to protect Bush.

Yeah, I read that, but that story is at odds with a lot of other unbiased sources (some would even say pro-Kerry if you count Koppel). So isn't there even just the chance that the affiliate is wrong?

Or is that completely impossible and Ted Koppel is lying to protect Bush.

I'll take videotape over Koppel's word any day. The video hasn't really been shown in anything but freezeframe though, so we will have to see how it plays out.

Also, Koppel may be saying that for a completely non Kerry/Bush reason. It may be a way to further discredit the competition, i.e. CBS/NY Times.

I'll take videotape over Koppel's word any day. The video hasn't really been shown in anything but freezeframe though, so we will have to see how it plays out.

Well Koppel showed video tape too.

And how do you know the relevance of the affialiates tape. Can you proove it was taken at the depot in question?

Well Koppel showed video tape too.

And how do you know the relevance of the affialiates tape. Can you proove it was taken at the depot in question?

It was confirmed by the 101st and GPS positioning, according to the story (are you sure you read it?)

Well Koppel showed video tape too.

And how do you know the relevance of the affialiates tape. Can you proove it was taken at the depot in question?
CAn they prove that the containers marked "explosives" didn't just contain TNT, or C4, or just plain old black powder?

It was confirmed by the 101st and GPS positioning, according to the story (are you sure you read it?)

It was confirmed that the affiliate had reporters near there. It has not been confirmed that those tapes in question were filmed at al-qaqaa. They could have been filmed anywhere. Nor has it been confirmed that those are even the explosives in question. All we have is the affliates word for it.

Maybe it's not all B.S., but don't you think its just possible that what Koppel said tonight is right.

Or again, is he lying to defend Bush?

god i'm glad saddam didn't really have wmds, or vx would be available at every market in the middle east and half of nyc would be on ventilators.

It was confirmed that the affiliate had reporters near there. It has not been confirmed that those tapes in question were filmed at al-qaqaa. They could have been filmed anywhere. Nor has it been confirmed that those are even the explosives in question. All we have is the affliates word for it.

Maybe it's not all B.S., but don't you think its just possible that what Koppel said tonight is right.

Or again, is he lying to defend Bush?

The videotape apparently contains footage of labels with Al Qaqaa on them. Someone is lying. Further investigation is needed. We shall all probably see soon.

why are the boxes in English ? I thought they used Arabic in Iraq ?

why are the boxes in English ? I thought they used Arabic in Iraq ?

I think the weapons inspectors labeled them, not the Iraqis.

All the labels proove though is that those crates were at Al-qaqaa at some point though. Not that they were filmed there.

CAn they prove that the containers marked "explosives" didn't just contain TNT, or C4, or just plain old black powder?
A minute ago on BBC
"the universal markers are clear" (HMX)
"IAEA had sealed the bunkers" The seals were unbroken.
"IAEA only sealed bunkers which had explosives in them."
Soldiers broke the seals and left the place unguarded (as they were told)

Well, I'll tell you what, come down from canada to Ft. Huachuca, Az. Look me up, and I'll tell you all about RDX, HMX, Saddam and Terorism. You'll go home with grey hair,and a slighty differant dispostion towards my country, instead of the constant slander against me and my nation. You don't know what I am an expert about. You have no idea about me or the United States military.

MunkeBrain, are you in the military? What specialty?

There's something I've been wondering about lately... How did we get so outmaneuvered in the media? We're winning the war, we're doing better than anyone has ever done historically, but on TV it looks like a total disaster. Our own news outlets are being used against us (perhaps as willing accomplices). Sort of what this guy describes in "news as a weapon"

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/05/news-coverage-as-weapon-historian-john.html

Maybe we need US Army NewsCom?

Rumsfeld on denial
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3963795.stm
I find the quote

"People who use hair-triggered judgement... frequently make mistakes that are awkward and embarrassing"

highly amusing.