HMX explosives left unsecured by troops

[khirkhib]

Yeah JJ, What's the question he isn't answering again. 
Exactly how it got stolen?
You've had more faith in assumptions than bush has made and all the sudden your a critical thinker.  Whatever.

[J. J.]

Yeah JJ, What's the question he isn't answering again. 
Exactly how it got stolen?
You've had more faith in assumptions than bush has made and all the sudden your a critical thinker.  Whatever.

That's one of them.  JFOOL claimed that the stories about them being moved were retracted.  Prehaps he isn't being dishonest, but just misread it.  The stories are still there.

Since we know now that the bulk of the explosives were blown up, he no longer has to answer how they were moved if not looted, since they weren't looted, at least the 360 tons that he claimed.

I'm not a critical think "all of a sudden."  If you look under the anti-Kerry rumor thread, you'll see me debunking it, assuming you can read.  You will also note that much of what I post, I document from independent sources, not the "Daily Kos" type partizan sources.  I trust that most people can read them.  Most people.

[khirkhib]

No I can't read.  It has been my curse my whole life but thankfully I have my grandma here as my personal stenographer to write up all my posts. 

And I just think that you are being as intelecutal disigenous as you accuse Kerry of being when you post the White House's apparant stumblings as a fact.  Just think about all of the different arguements the White House put out over the last 48 hours. Everything from Russia moved it.  To Sadam did.  It wasn't there when we got there.  We destroyed it.  And you defending each arguement.  Obviously somebody is wrong here and there is no more reason to believe this last excuse than there was the first one.

[J. J.]

No I can't read.  It has been my curse my whole life but thankfully I have my grandma here as my personal stenographer to write up all my posts. 

And I just think that you are being as intelecutal disigenous as you accuse Kerry of being when you post the White House's apparant stumblings as a fact.  Just think about all of the different arguements the White House put out over the last 48 hours. Everything from Russia moved it.  To Sadam did.  It wasn't there when we got there.  We destroyed it.  And you defending each arguement.  Obviously somebody is wrong here and there is no more reason to believe this last excuse than there was the first one.

Hey, we have photos of trucks near the site at the right time.  We have a witness that says, in effect, hey there was a lot of stuff there that we blew up.  We have real news media that says hey, the IAEA informed the US on May 3 and were there within 5 days.

Now, we have the counter story.  Somebody sneaked into this base, picked up 360 metric tons of explosives and spirted them away, eighteen tractor trailor loads.  Oh, and yes, they transported it down roads that were filled with Army convoys and patrolled by the Army.  They also did this in exceptionally close proximity to a brigade (about 5 to 6 K people) of the 101st Airbone Division!  That is what you are asking me to believe and that is what John Kerry is asking you to believe.

How was this done, if it was done?  Alladin flew it out on his magic carpet?  Tiny Islamist fairies sprinkled magic desert sand over it to make it lighter and invisible?

This story, on its face, was too incredible to be believed from the start, at least without some evidence; the evidence doesn't support the incredible story.  I feel very sorry for you if are too partizan, too naive, or too stupid to really believe that.  Kerry, obviously, (I hope) isn't that naive or stupid, so that only leaves one option.

I will add that the White House did not put out the story about the Russians, though it could make some sense.  I waited for it to be confirmed by media sources prior to commenting on it.

[Bogart]

One other point I haven't heard addressed; and I throw this out there for no other reason. I did not notice any time or date stamp on that video. Granted I have only seen the clips, but neither did I see anything on them indicating where the video was taken. Does anybody actually know?

[J. J.]

One other point I haven't heard addressed; and I throw this out there for no other reason. I did not notice any time or date stamp on that video. Granted I have only seen the clips, but neither did I see anything on them indicating where the video was taken. Does anybody actually know?

It was date stamped, according to the reports.  The day was, however, several weeks before IAEA informed the US of the existence of the explosives, according to MSNBC.

The location is though, and there is evidence, that it was someplace on the base, but they could not specify it was one of the bunkers in question.

[khirkhib]

How many trucks does it take when you are allowed to loot for monthes.

Reporter saw insurgents loot Qaqaa arms depot
By Katrin Bennhold International Herald Tribune
Saturday, October 30, 2004
 
PARIS A French journalist who visited the Qaqaa munitions depot south of Baghdad in November last year said she witnessed Islamic insurgents looting vast supplies of explosives more than six months after the demise of Saddam Hussein's regime.

The account of Sara Daniel, which will be published Wednesday in the French weekly Le Nouvel Observateur, lends further weight to allegations that American occupying forces in Iraq failed to protect hundreds of tons of munitions from extremists plotting attacks against their own troops.

Much of the controversy has centered around the disappearance of about 380 tons of the powerful HMX explosive. The material, which had been monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency before the war and subsequently sealed in bunkers by its inspectors, was reported missing by Iraqi officials earlier this month.

Daniel, who spent nearly two hours at Qaqaa with a group that has since become known as the Islamic Army of Iraq, could not confirm seeing buildings that carried the agency's seal or explosives that were marked to be of the HMX variety. But her report is one of terrorists having easy access to a vast weapons inventory.

"I was utterly stupefied to see that a place like that was pretty much unguarded and that insurgents could help themselves for months on end," Daniel said on Friday. "We were there for a long time and no one disturbed the group while they were loading their truck."

A man who identified himself as Abu Abdallah and led the group Daniel was with, told her that his men and numerous other insurgent groups had rushed to Qaqaa after U.S.-led troops captured Baghdad on April 9 last year. The groups stole truck-loads of material from what used to be the biggest explosive factory in the Middle East in the expectation that coalition forces would move quickly to seal it off, Daniel was told.

Abu Abdullah and his men showed her the arsenal of rocket launchers, grenades and explosives hidden near their small farm houses, she said.

But much to the insurgents' surprise, Qaqaa was not sealed off by U.S. soldiers, leading many groups to stop hoarding and instead going for regular refills of explosive materials, according to Abu Abdullah.

Daniel said she saw how poorly guarded the munitions complex was. During the drive there last November, she recalled seeing few patrols and "far away" from the site. The truck was stopped only once, for about three minutes, Daniel said, by a U.S. soldier in a tank.

Daniel said those who went to Qaqaa to stock up on munitions appeared ready to use them to attack the occupying forces. On Nov. 22, a few days after her visit at Qaqaa, Abu Abdallah's group fired a surface-to-air missile at a DHL cargo-plane. The men gave her a video tape of themselves launching the attack in which she says she clearly recognized Abu Abdallah.

Daniel said she decided to write about her experience at Qaqaa after the disappearance of the HMX explosive became a key dispute in the U.S. presidential election campaign.

[J. J.]

How many trucks does it take when you are allowed to loot for monthes.

The point is that they were not "allowed to loot for months" as you claim khirkboob.  There is a timeline between the base falling and the inspection.  This is what Kerry claims and Kerry's claims are intellectually dishonest, here.

Here we have a report from six months after the explosives went "missing."

Let's where were are:

1.  Trucks with 500 yards of the bunkers before the war started.

2.  A witness to the destruction of 250 metric tons of explosives, including some of the HMX type, within ten days of US being informed it was there.

3.  An inspection, looking for the explosives, which didn't find anything, well before the French report of looting.

Let's see what we don't have:

1.  No way to move the explosives within the time frame, without trucks.

2.  Roads the trucks would have to use being used by the US Army and being patroled by the US Army.

3.  A brigade of Airborne located exceptionally close to the site, which would kinda make it hard for a large force with trucks to show up.

Anything else to add, like "Duh!"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How many trucks does it take when you are allowed to loot for monthes.

The point is that they were not "allowed to loot for months" as you claim khirkboob.  There is a timeline between the base falling and the inspection.  This is what Kerry claims and Kerry's claims are intellectually dishonest, here.

Here we have a report from six months after the explosives went "missing."

Let's where were are:

1.  Trucks with 500 yards of the bunkers before the war started.

2.  A witness to the destruction of 250 metric tons of explosives, including some of the HMX type, within ten days of US being informed it was there.

3.  An inspection, looking for the explosives, which didn't find anything, well before the French report of looting.

Let's see what we don't have:

1.  No way to move the explosives within the time frame, without trucks.

2.  Roads the trucks would have to use being used by the US Army and being patroled by the US Army.

3.  A brigade of Airborne located exceptionally close to the site, which would kinda make it hard for a large force with trucks to show up.

Anything else to add, like "Duh!"

Funny how you have such confidence in what the Pentagon says.

[J. J.]

Funny how you have such confidence in what the Pentagon says.

Funny how should so much faith in what people say, that were not there.  No, it's not funny jFOOL, it just an example of pathethic you and Kerry are. 

Politicials like Kerry lie, but Kerry isn't even being a good liar here.

[shankbear]

Khirk you said it.....a FRENCH reporter.  Zero credibility.  None, nada, zip.

The site was crawling with U.S. troops.  They did't just sneak 380 tons out.  380 tons.  We blew it up already.  I have confidence that our slodiers knew and know what the hell they were doing.  Give them credit.  Do not denigrate our troops.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Khirk you said it.....a FRENCH reporter.  Zero credibility.  None, nada, zip.

The site was crawling with U.S. troops.  They did't just sneak 380 tons out.  380 tons.  We blew it up already.  I have confidence that our slodiers knew and know what the hell they were doing.  Give them credit.  Do not denigrate our troops.

Wow, French, that really proves it.  Do you think Bush has any credibility? He's lied like no tommorrow.

[J. J.]

This lack of patriotism does infect John Kerry and the loony left, like jFRAUD.  He really seems to enjoy running down the Army while we're engaged in the middle of a way.  I wonder if he'll be referring to them as "Ghengis Kahn."

[khirkhib]

I don't think it is the military's fault. I have a very miliary family and I think we have the best trained troops, strongest military in the world I think the fault goes to the civilian counterparts who did not go with the pentago suggestion of sending in overwhelming force to capture and secure all targets after the invasion.    Guilliani is the one who blamed the troops for not doing there job.

Second point.  The military documents everything (you wouldn't guess that from the condition of Bush's military records but they do).  One guys saying I might have destroyed some of the ammo that you are talking about though it wasn't really in the same area and didn't have the seals just doesn't convince me.  I wish it could but it doesn't.

[J. J.]

I don't think it is the military's fault. I have a very miliary family and I think we have the best trained troops, strongest military in the world I think the fault goes to the civilian counterparts who did not go with the pentago suggestion of sending in overwhelming force to capture and secure all targets after the invasion.    Guilliani is the one who blamed the troops for not doing there job.

No, despite jFRAUD's insinuation, it is not the military's fault.  Within 10 days of the IAEA's letter, delivered in Vienna, the troops in the field were blowing munitions up.  As far as I'm conserned, that's pretty good.

Now, I find it odd to suggest that, with an insurgency going on, and slightly under one metric ton of explosives in the country per soldier in the US Army worldwide, would inventory it first.

I get the impression from you 'boob and from jFRAUD that you don't realize how much explosives were in Iraq.

[khirkhib]

I don't think you understand that we did not bring in enough troops into the countrey to secure the peace and the weapons.

[J. J.]

I don't think you understand that we did not bring in enough troops into the countrey to secure the peace and the weapons.

Obviously, you don't think.  If we took EVERY soldier on active duty in the US Army, all over the world, sent them to Iraq, gave each one an M-16 and a cot, and said, "Okay, each of you guard one ton of explosives," there would be enough troops.  That is the amount of explosive that there is in Iraq.  It would take that kind of manpower to guard the explosives.

There is also the very real problem of trying to get that many troops into Iraq and supplying them.  I did do a thread where this was discussed, and doing some other way creates its own set of problems.

[khirkhib]

Hey we had all the time in the world to prepare.  The pentagon had advised Bush to go in with more troops.  Bush chose not to and he is therefore responsible fore the consiquences namely all of the important military depots were not secured in a timely manner.

[J. J.]

Hey we had all the time in the world to prepare.  The pentagon had advised Bush to go in with more troops.  Bush chose not to and he is therefore responsible fore the consiquences namely all of the important military depots were not secured in a timely manner.

Acttually, they didn't.  The commanders signed off on the orders.

You can't comprehend the suppy problems.  You not only have to transport the additional troops there, but you have to provide for their food and water.  You have to get their equipment in as well.  You don't infinite port facilities to offload all the stuff. 

Once the troops invade, you have continue to supply them.  Yes, there was way to do it, a phased advanced, but it would have run the risk of numerous hit and run attacks by the Iraqis.  It still would not have solved the problem of securing everything, because there were sooooo many explosives.

[khirkhib]

You don't know if they couldn't have done it.  You don't know that insurgents couldn't have taken the material.  You are defending a reality that needs event to have fallen with-in very specific parameters.  You are treating the unknown as definitive events and you are buying the company line in everything that they say.   

You think that the US military couldn't have secured all known military depots in 2 months and I think that our troop were quite capable of that had they recieved the leadership.  You are the person doubting the military's abiliities.  Bush misinterpreted how the Iraqi would respond to the invasion (against the advice of history, experts and his own father) and I think this is one of many reasons that we did to get a more competant leader.

[J. J.]

You don't know if they couldn't have done it.  You don't know that insurgents couldn't have taken the material.  You are defending a reality that needs event to have fallen with-in very specific parameters.  You are treating the unknown as definitive events and you are buying the company line in everything that they say.   

You think that the US military couldn't have secured all known military depots in 2 months and I think that our troop were quite capable of that had they recieved the leadership.  You are the person doubting the military's abiliities.  Bush misinterpreted how the Iraqi would respond to the invasion (against the advice of history, experts and his own father) and I think this is one of many reasons that we did to get a more competant leader.

I wouldn't call it the company line; I would call it basic math.

If you increase the force by one third, for example, you are going to have to increase the following by at least one third:

Food
Water
Weapons and vehicles
Transportation to Iraq

Most, if not all of that comes off of ships.  There is only one port where that stuff can be off-loaded, in Kuwait.  It's like the narrow end of a funnel (maybe that analogy will help).  Even with the forces they had, they strained the Kuwait's point almost to the breaking point.  This has been the kind of problems the Army had in invading Europe in WW II.

It's hard, if not impossible, to do that.  I also would question the wisdom of pulling just about all of the troops out of every base on the planet.  A choice between that and what happened, I choose what happened.

I'll also add that there were supply problems even with the troops that were there, in the first days of the war.

I would also seriously doubt that all the explosives from any war were secured.  There are still things floating around from WW II, that occasionally turn up.

You really are not comprehending the amount of explosives in the country.

[freedomburns]

Mondo Distortionari, you are stating yourself that Bush had no real plan to secure Iraq and essentially knew this when he dicided to go in.

They went in knowing that they were creating a powder keg, and they did it intentionally.  They knew that there were never going to be close to enough troops there to secure the peace.  I agree with your analysis.


fb

[J. J.]

Mondo Distortionari, you are stating yourself that Bush had no real plan to secure Iraq and essentially knew this when he dicided to go in.

They went in knowing that they were creating a powder keg, and they did it intentionally.  They knew that there were never going to be close to enough troops there to secure the peace.  I agree with your analysis.


fb

Freedumbburns, with just under one metric ton[/b] per soldier in the entire US Army that Hussein had, you can hardly claim the US created a powder keg, either figuratively or literally.

There are not enough troops in the Army to secure all the explosives in the way you suggest.  We'd have to send the postal service and possibly the Elks, just to get the manpower that you want.

[freedomburns]

Mondo Distortionari, you are stating yourself that Bush had no real plan to secure Iraq and essentially knew this when he dicided to go in.

They went in knowing that they were creating a powder keg, and they did it intentionally.  They knew that there were never going to be close to enough troops there to secure the peace.  I agree with your analysis.


fb

Freedumbburns, with just under one metric ton[/b] per soldier in the entire US Army that Hussein had, you can hardly claim the US created a powder keg, either figuratively or literally.

There are not enough troops in the Army to secure all the explosives in the way you suggest.  We'd have to send the postal service and possibly the Elks, just to get the manpower that you want.

Mondo Distortionari, living up to your new nickname I see.

I never claimed tha Bush created the powder keg.  You are distorting my words. 

I am only agreeing with you.  Bush knew that there was way more weaponry and explosives in Iraq than the US Army could ever hope to secure. 

You are simply restating what I already agreed with you on.  The Bush Administration knew full well that there were not enough troops to secure the country and it's existing stockpiles. 

They let it happen this way because the wanted Iraq to be an unstable morass that would requre our presence for a long time.  This is obviously the reason behind the foot dragging on training the new police force, too.


fb

[J. J.]

Mondo Distortionari, you are stating yourself that Bush had no real plan to secure Iraq and essentially knew this when he dicided to go in.

They went in knowing that they were creating a powder keg, and they did it intentionally.  They knew that there were never going to be close to enough troops there to secure the peace.  I agree with your analysis.


fb

Freedumbburns, with just under one metric ton[/b] per soldier in the entire US Army that Hussein had, you can hardly claim the US created a powder keg, either figuratively or literally.

There are not enough troops in the Army to secure all the explosives in the way you suggest.  We'd have to send the postal service and possibly the Elks, just to get the manpower that you want.

Mondo Distortionari, living up to your new nickname I see.

I never claimed tha Bush created the powder keg.  You are distorting my words. 

I am only agreeing with you.  Bush knew that there was way more weaponry and explosives in Iraq than the US Army could ever hope to secure. 

You are simply restating what I already agreed with you on.  The Bush Administration knew full well that there were not enough troops to secure the country and it's existing stockpiles. 

They let it happen this way because the wanted Iraq to be an unstable morass that would requre our presence for a long time.  This is obviously the reason behind the foot dragging on training the new police force, too.


fb

It's amazing that you can't even seem to understand your own posts.  Here is what you said, "They went in knowing that they were creating a powder keg, and they did it intentionally. "  Now you say, "I never claimed tha Bush created the powder keg.  You are distorting my words. "   Flip flop, in less than one hour.

No force could have "secured" the amount of explosives; there were too many explosives.  Even if we sent in every active duty soldier in the Army, it still wasn't enought.  That's how much Hussein had, and you, and Kerry, don't think this is a treat.