THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Let's assume Bush bungled Qaqaa. Further, let's assume he did that by failing to ask his commanders whether they had an adequate number of troops to occupy Baghdad and other cities, capture Saddam and his 50+ cronies, and adequately guard all the discovered ordinance storage facilities including Qaqaa.

I wonder if John Kerry would have similarly bungled that Qaqaa thing too. I especially wonder that considering he implied he would have delayed the Iraq invasion until France and Russia finally agreed not to veto UN support of it. Such a delay given current French and Russian administrations and Saddam bribes with Oil-for-Food money, would probably still be going on. That of course, would have given Saddam more time to accumulate more, apply more and loot more of his HMX and RDX.

0 Replies

If we knew where and what it was before we attacked ... ie 'it came up missing before we arrived' ... wouldn't it be logical to make it one of our 'first' objectives, to take it out? Pin point strike .... or pull half the troops from guarding the ministery of oil and have them watch over it. Methinks some 'spin' to cover up yet another screwup has been committedby the gang that couldn't shoot straight has been attempted.

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

If we knew where and what it was before we attacked ... ie 'it came up missing before we arrived' ... wouldn't it be logical to make it one of our 'first' objectives, to take it out?

[Emphasis added by me!]

If it came up missing after January 2003, but before we invaded Iraq in March, the answer to your question would be no, it wouldn't make sense.

If it's missing, what would be left there at Qaqaa that would warrant "taking it out"?

We did know where and what it was in January before we attacked, because the inspection folks told us so. But If it were missing prior to our arrival, we couldn't take out the missing HMX and RDX after we arrived until we found it.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

angie wrote:
...Had Bush not chosen to execute a pre-911 agenda-driven, unjustified, unilateral, ill-planned and obviously counter-productive invasion of Iraq, we might still be truly united behind him in a "sincere" attempt to fight real terrorism.

I think you might benefit by reading the 9-11 Commission Report www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
and the Duelfer Report www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/ to test your assertion.

I've learned from reading for myself what was truly said in the 9-11 Commission's Report, the Duelfer Report, Colin Powell's speech to the UN (February, 2003), Bush's speech to the Congress (prior to Congressional approval of invading Iraq if Bush concludes it necessary), that I cannot trust ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN or the NYT, WP, BG, or the LAT to truthfully report.

angie wrote:
I participate here at A2K because I enjoy the dialogue. There are actually many meaningful informative interchanges. I do not believe a post has to be capable of altering someone's political position to be valid or worthwhile.
I feel the same way.

angie wrote:
So, post away if you like, if it makes you feel good, but it will not make any difference.
Then we agree it will make a difference, the personal differences you cited.

Bush's invasion was agenda-driven, unjustified, unilateral, ill-planned, and counter-productive (to the real war on terrorism). Exactly which part of the 911 Comission report refutes any of that ?

Clearly, the use of the word "difference" in my original post implied a "difference in one's opinion re Bush". This is all getting a bit too nit-picky for me. I shall, therefore, take my leave of this thread now, though, who knows, perhaps in another 7000 plus posts, I'll be back, and perhaps I'll find you here still trying to make the unmakeable case for Bush & his thugs.

0 Replies

angie wrote:

Bush's invasion was agenda-driven, unjustified, unilateral, ill-planned, and counter-productive (to the real war on terrorism). Exactly which part of the 911 Comission report refutes any of that ?

Chapters 1 through 10. Chapters 11, 12, and 13 merely imply a refutation of that.

Quote:

... perhaps in another 7000 plus posts, I'll be back, and perhaps I'll find you here still trying to make the unmakeable case for Bush & his thugs.

Objectivity Question

0 Replies

OK, I am going to let this one go as we don't really know all the information yet about what exactly was in those supposed convoys that were supposed to have been spotted by satellites. (wonder if it is the same satellites that Powell showed during his infamous UN nation speech that has since been debunked?) Personally I find it hard to believe that Saddam Hussien would give weapons away to Syria and then go hide in a hole for three months or however long it was before they found him. I mean why not go with the weapons or soon after and then use them to defend your regime to stay in power so you are not hiding in a hole like a corned rabbit afraid to come out? It plain don't make sense at all.

Most intelligence reports don't give a lot of credence to the syria theory.

0 Replies

The Bottom line with the article from the MSNBC interview is that after they went in after April 10 there were some kind of weapons at the site in question, it was not empty because it said, "vast amount of weapons..." and there was looting going on. And yes, it should have been gaurded.

0 Replies

There were huge amounts of munitions all over Iraq. To date we have destroyed hundreds of tons of them. Because the munitiions at al Qa Qaa were of the routine variety we were finding everywhere, looting was not a serious issue. The facility was given a tier two security priority with more dangerous sites, preventing sabotage of the oil wells as was done in Kuwait, etc. given priority one rating. Rememer Saddam wasn't caught yet and he and his thugs were still alive and well despite Baghdad being secured.

We could have put every active duty serviceperson, called out every reservist and guardsman, and reactivated a bunch of retirees and not have anywhere near enough people to guard everything. Iraq is a large country and there is a lot of stuff there. It was necessary to prioritize. To leave one or two soldiers to guard one very large facility would have been really really dumb. So they did they best they could.

I've been watching/listening to the story unfold all day today and I believe the Bush administration, the military, and all responsible media are now convinced the heavy explosives were not there. The Kerry campaign, irresponsible media, and the Bush haters will keep on trying to milk the story for whatever they can get out of it. I do think it will backfire on them though. There is a limit to how much you can play your public as utter fools.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

There were huge amounts of munitions all over Iraq. To date we have destroyed hundreds of tons of them. Because the munitiions at al Qa Qaa were of the routine variety we were finding everywhere, looting was not a serious issue. The facility was given a tier two security priority with more dangerous sites, preventing sabotage of the oil wells as was done in Kuwait, etc. given priority one rating. Rememer Saddam wasn't caught yet and he and his thugs were still alive and well despite Baghdad being secured.

We could have put every active duty serviceperson, called out every reservist and guardsman, and reactivated a bunch of retirees and not have anywhere near enough people to guard everything. Iraq is a large country and there is a lot of stuff there. It was necessary to prioritize. To leave one or two soldiers to guard one very large facility would have been really really dumb. So they did they best they could.

I've been watching/listening to the story unfold all day today and I believe the Bush administration, the military, and all responsible media are now convinced the heavy explosives were not there. The Kerry campaign, irresponsible media, and the Bush haters will keep on trying to milk the story for whatever they can get out of it. I do think it will backfire on them though. There is a limit to how much you can play your public as utter fools.

Let me see if I have this right ....the 400 tons that were recently reported missing were of the common garden variety and as such, not to be of any concern ... after all, how many people could you kill with that amount of high explosive?
We did not send enough troops to fight, defend, and guard at the same time .... this was just a little 'uh oh' in planning ....like, 'hey guys lets go invade Iraq ... so we're short about a hundred thousand troops .....it will be fun .... cmon OK?'
It's dirty pool to point out flaws in one's adversaries ....
Did I miss anything?

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

Let me see if I have this right ....the 400 tons that were recently reported missing were of the common garden variety and as such, not to be of any concern ... after all, how many people could you kill with that amount of high explosive?
We did not send enough troops to fight, defend, and guard at the same time .... this was just a little 'uh oh' in planning ....like, 'hey guys lets go invade Iraq ... so we're short about a hundred thousand troops .....it will be fun .... cmon OK?'
It's dirty pool to point out flaws in one's adversaries ....
Did I miss anything?

No, you have it wrong. The explosives that went missing are very bad stuff, and this underscores what a bad man Saddam was, that he could not be trusted, and that he had intentions of acquiring WMD.

The question that needs to be answered completely and fully is when did the explosives go missing. It is politically expedient for some to be quick to jump on this as a screw-up of the Bush Administration, but the facts have not yet been established as to that. Kerry has already cut an ad where he hammers Bush on this point. But ...

Now, however, the Kerry campaign admits that the information that is the basis of Senator Kerry's statements and his campaign advertisement may not even be true. Pressed on Tuesday afternoon about the accuracy of the allegations on Fox's Big Story with John Gibson, Richard Holbrooke, a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign, said: "You don't know the truth and I don't know the truth." He later underscored this point: "I don't know the truth."

0 Replies

You must have missed this part of my post Geli, but it bears repeating:

Quote:

We could have put every active duty serviceperson, called out every reservist and guardsman, and reactivated a bunch of retirees and not have anywhere near enough people to guard everything. Iraq is a large country and there is a lot of stuff there. It was necessary to prioritize. To leave one or two soldiers to guard one very large facility would have been really really dumb. So they did they best they could.

We did not leave any munitions that we knew about unguarded that were not already easily available to any Iraqi who wanted them. The experts now believe Saddam trucked the heavy stuff out of the country in advance of the invasion. Even John Kerry has backed down from the hot rhetoric earlier today/

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Gelisgesti wrote:
Let me see if I have this right ....the 400 tons that were recently reported missing were of the common garden variety and as such, not to be of any concern ... after all, how many people could you kill with that amount of high explosive?
We did not send enough troops to fight, defend, and guard at the same time .... this was just a little 'uh oh' in planning ....like, 'hey guys lets go invade Iraq ... so we're short about a hundred thousand troops .....it will be fun .... cmon OK?'
It's dirty pool to point out flaws in one's adversaries ....
Did I miss anything?

No, you have it wrong. The explosives that went missing are very bad stuff, and this underscores what a bad man Saddam was, that he could not be trusted, and that he had intentions of acquiring WMD.

The question that needs to be answered completely and fully is when did the explosives go missing. It is politically expedient for some to be quick to jump on this as a screw-up of the Bush Administration, but the facts have not yet been established as to that. Kerry has already cut an ad where he hammers Bush on this point. But ...

Now, however, the Kerry campaign admits that the information that is the basis of Senator Kerry's statements and his campaign advertisement may not even be true. Pressed on Tuesday afternoon about the accuracy of the allegations on Fox's Big Story with John Gibson, Richard Holbrooke, a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign, said: "You don't know the truth and I don't know the truth." He later underscored this point: "I don't know the truth."

You responded to a sarcastic post I made to a different post so your post is out of context to my post ....... pluuuus, your post is factually incorrect as the described find is not considered WMD.

W.M.D. n : a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons) [syn: weapon of mass destruction, WMD, W.M.D.]

0 Replies

Some of you like jokes, I see. I do too. Here's one:

George W. Bush visits a school classroom where they are in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asks Mr. Bush if he would like to lead the discussion of the word "tragedy."

The President asks the class for an example of a tragedy.

One little boy stands up and offers: "If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs him over and kills him, that would be a 'tragedy.'"

"No," says Bush, "that would be an accident."

A little girl raises her hand. "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy."

"I'm afraid not," explains Mr. Bush. "That's what we would call a 'great loss.'"

The room goes silent. No other children volunteered. Bush searches the room. "Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a 'tragedy?'"

Finally, at the back of the room, a small boy raises his hand. In a quiet voice, he says: "If your campaign plane, carrying you Mr. Bush, were struck by a 'friendly fire' missile and blown to smithereens, that would be 'tragedy.'"

"Fantastic!" exclaims Bush. "That's right. And can you tell me why that would be a 'tragedy?'"

"Well," says the boy, "because it certainly wouldn't be a 'great loss' and it probably wouldn't be an 'accident' either."

0 Replies

That is the funniest thing I have heard this morning !! <mind you, I havent spoken to anyone yet since I woke up>

0 Replies

Gautam wrote:

That is the funniest thing I have heard this morning !! <mind you, I havent spoken to anyone yet since I woke up>

2nd funniest

There's nothing worse than a snotty doctor's receptionist who insists you tell her what is wrong in a room full of other patients.I know most of us have experienced this, and I love the way this old guy handled it.
An 86 year old man walked into a crowded doctor's office. As he approached the desk, the receptionist said, "Yes sir, what are you seeing the doctor for today?" "There's something wrong with my dick,"he replied. The receptionist became irritated and said, "You shouldn't come into a crowded office and say things like that."
"Why not? You asked me what was wrong and I told you," he said. The receptionist replied, "You've obviously caused some embarrassment in this room full of people. You should have said there is something wrong with your ear or something and then discussed the problem further with the doctor in private." The man replied, "You shouldn't ask people things in a room full of others, if the answer could embarrass anyone." The man walked out, waited several minutes and then reentered. The receptionist smiled smugly and asked, "Yes?" "There's something wrong with my ear," he stated. The receptionist nodded approvingly and smiled, knowing he had taken her advice. "And what is wrong with your ear, Sir?" "I can't piss out of it," the man replied. The doctor's office erupted in laughter.

0 Replies

Posted by me elsewhere, this programme will be on BBC TV tonight. I hope it comes your way soon, this series is excellent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3951615.stm

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

There were huge amounts of munitions all over Iraq. To date we have destroyed hundreds of tons of them. Because the munitiions at al Qa Qaa were of the routine variety we were finding everywhere, looting was not a serious issue. The facility was given a tier two security priority with more dangerous sites, preventing sabotage of the oil wells as was done in Kuwait, etc. given priority one rating. Rememer Saddam wasn't caught yet and he and his thugs were still alive and well despite Baghdad being secured.

We could have put every active duty serviceperson, called out every reservist and guardsman, and reactivated a bunch of retirees and not have anywhere near enough people to guard everything. Iraq is a large country and there is a lot of stuff there. It was necessary to prioritize. To leave one or two soldiers to guard one very large facility would have been really really dumb. So they did they best they could.

I've been watching/listening to the story unfold all day today and I believe the Bush administration, the military, and all responsible media are now convinced the heavy explosives were not there. The Kerry campaign, irresponsible media, and the Bush haters will keep on trying to milk the story for whatever they can get out of it. I do think it will backfire on them though. There is a limit to how much you can play your public as utter fools.

If the media was really responsible they would just be convinced that there is possibility that the weapons were not there. There is also just as much of a possibility that they were taken when all that looting was taken place. When they run across the vast amounts of weapons they should have taken steps to secure it no matter what kind of weapons there were. If they had enough troops they could have done so.

0 Replies

Revel, has it occurred to you how many looters it would take to remove 300 TONS of explosives? How difficult that would have been to do without being noticed by somebody? Anyone who is the least bit realistic knows it was not taken by looters. It was taken by somebody with very large heavy duty trucks and a lot of manpower.

Just the sheer volume involved also gives credibility to the reports that the material was not there when they went to the facility in the first wave of the invasion. It would have been pretty difficult to overlook even during a cursory inspection.

There are the true believers, however, who so WANT this to be blamed on the Bush administration, they'll go right on inventing stories to support that. The responsible media in this case have been the ones who are reporting the actual facts--we don't KNOW what happened to the material--and are not automatically blaming it on Bush. The irresponsible media (and all others irresponsible and/or opportunistic) do use it to embarrass the President for all the mileage they can get out of it.

It isn't too hard to figure which group honorable people most respect.

0 Replies

Quote:

Now, as a result of his exploitation of the questionable New York Times story, we know a bit more. The clear implication is that, in a Kerry administration, the 380 tons of weapons would not have been lost; they would have been secured -- even without an invasion. A miracle! --James K Glassman

--
http://www.techcentralstation.com/102704C.html

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

You responded to a sarcastic post I made to a different post so your post is out of context to my post ....... pluuuus, your post is factually incorrect as the described find is not considered WMD.

W.M.D. n : a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons) [syn: weapon of mass destruction, WMD, W.M.D.]

I understood you were probably being sarcastic. I was not. I'm suggesting the explosives that went missing are seriously dangerous explosives, not garden variety. Are you claiming your point is different that mine?

Or are you just upset that I called you wrong? Confused

Was Saddam permitted to produce and possess this type of explosive under UN resolutions? I have been lead to believe he was not. If not, it is evidence of yet another example of his intentional violations of UN resolutions.

Foxfyre: Thanks for that link ...

Quote:

Kerry and Edwards say that Bush didn't do enough to prevent the disappearance of the explosives, which could be used against Americans here at home. But the very existence of such explosives -- whether defined as weapons of mass destruction or not -- was the reason Bush led the nation into Iraq in the first place.

Why did we invade Iraq? Specifically, so dangerous weapons would not be used against us here at home -- either by Saddam Hussein's forces or by his terrorist friends. Did we miss some of these weapons? Of course. But we got a lot more than we would have gotten if we had not gone into Iraq in the first place.

Exactly.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know