400,000 tons of weapons collected, half of them have been destroyed

[her209]

We've lost sight of the real issue at hand. It's not about the amount of weapons that have been captured or lost. I think its great that our troops have captured a large amount of weapons, whatever the percentage of the total that it is. It means less weapons for the enemy. However, the real issue at hand is, did the administration knowingly leave these bunkers insecured because even if just one life is lost from the stolen weapons, then it is a travesty.

 

[christoph83]

Originally posted by: her209
We've lost sight of the real issue at hand. It's not about the amount of weapons that have been captured or lost. I think its great that our troops have captured a large amount of weapons, whatever the percentage of the total that it is. It means less weapons for the enemy. However, the real issue at hand is, did the administration knowingly leave these bunkers insecured because even if just one life is lost from the stolen weapons, then it is a travesty.

According to the U.N. there is no issue. Check out my previous post. Still were having a lot of mixed information coming in. And I agree it wouldn't be good if terrorists got their hands on these weapons, but hey...I thought Iraq wasn't sopposed to have these explosives in the first place.

 

[conjur]

A nice summary of the news articles:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

 

[christoph83]

Interesting stuff. Thanks.

 

[merkinofbaphomet]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I'm still waiting for a link to this 400,000 tons of weapons. I have feeling it's in the same place as the 100,000 fully trained Iraqi forces . . .

I'm sure someone can detail this since you all appear to know that this does not include tanks, planes . . . and is probably only the warheads NOT missile fuselages.

I will look for the link. Ordnance is not tanks or planes...

Once again, from Merriam-Webster Online:

Main Entry: ord·nance
Pronunciation: 'ord-n&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ordinaunce, from Middle French ordenance, literally, act of arranging
a : military supplies including weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and maintenance tools and equipment
b : a service of the army charged with the procuring, distributing, and safekeeping of ordnance


Sorry, charrison. Ordnance includes all military hardware, tanks and planes too. Munition is another word for military hardware. Both are very broad terms. Let's not play word games.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: christoph83

Originally posted by: her209
We've lost sight of the real issue at hand. It's not about the amount of weapons that have been captured or lost. I think its great that our troops have captured a large amount of weapons, whatever the percentage of the total that it is. It means less weapons for the enemy. However, the real issue at hand is, did the administration knowingly leave these bunkers insecured because even if just one life is lost from the stolen weapons, then it is a travesty.

According to the U.N. there is no issue. Check out my previous post. Still were having a lot of mixed information coming in. And I agree it wouldn't be good if terrorists got their hands on these weapons, but hey...I thought Iraq wasn't sopposed to have these explosives in the first place.

I don't want to be rude, but do you really think HMX qualifies as WMD's? These are conventional wepaons, last I heard the war was based on the hunt for WMD's or whatever, not HMX. Its been beaten to death already but the crux of the situatio is that we were not prepared to meet the resistance we've met because our leaders simply did not anticipate it. Guys like Shinseki stated it would require hundreds of thousands of troops to secure Iraq, security being precisly what Iraq has lacked sicne we invaded it.

 

[christoph83]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: christoph83

Originally posted by: her209
We've lost sight of the real issue at hand. It's not about the amount of weapons that have been captured or lost. I think its great that our troops have captured a large amount of weapons, whatever the percentage of the total that it is. It means less weapons for the enemy. However, the real issue at hand is, did the administration knowingly leave these bunkers insecured because even if just one life is lost from the stolen weapons, then it is a travesty.

According to the U.N. there is no issue. Check out my previous post. Still were having a lot of mixed information coming in. And I agree it wouldn't be good if terrorists got their hands on these weapons, but hey...I thought Iraq wasn't sopposed to have these explosives in the first place.

I don't want to be rude, but do you really think HMX qualifies as WMD's? These are conventional wepaons, last I heard the war was based on the hunt for WMD's or whatever, not HMX. Its been beaten to death already but the crux of the situatio is that we were not prepared to meet the resistance we've met because our leaders simply did not anticipate it. Guys like Shinseki stated it would require hundreds of thousands of troops to secure Iraq, security being precisly what Iraq has lacked sicne we invaded it.

I was under the impression Iraq was sopposed to be disarming period, as in explosives like these. I wasn't talking about anything realated to WMD's. These weapons dont come close to WMD's.

We have 150,000 troops estimated in Iraq . link

What resistence are you talking about exactly? It took us less than a month to take over Iraq. Securing it is different like you said, but with elections in a month, and a growing iraqi military force, things seems to be progressing better IMO. The only thing we're dealing with now is a couple of hot spots, mainly Fallujah.

 

[conjur]

A couple of hot spots?? WTF?

That's it....I'm blowing the whistle on this troll. We've been Skoorbed by a new troll.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: christoph83

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: christoph83

Originally posted by: her209
We've lost sight of the real issue at hand. It's not about the amount of weapons that have been captured or lost. I think its great that our troops have captured a large amount of weapons, whatever the percentage of the total that it is. It means less weapons for the enemy. However, the real issue at hand is, did the administration knowingly leave these bunkers insecured because even if just one life is lost from the stolen weapons, then it is a travesty.

According to the U.N. there is no issue. Check out my previous post. Still were having a lot of mixed information coming in. And I agree it wouldn't be good if terrorists got their hands on these weapons, but hey...I thought Iraq wasn't sopposed to have these explosives in the first place.

I don't want to be rude, but do you really think HMX qualifies as WMD's? These are conventional wepaons, last I heard the war was based on the hunt for WMD's or whatever, not HMX. Its been beaten to death already but the crux of the situatio is that we were not prepared to meet the resistance we've met because our leaders simply did not anticipate it. Guys like Shinseki stated it would require hundreds of thousands of troops to secure Iraq, security being precisly what Iraq has lacked sicne we invaded it.

I was under the impression Iraq was sopposed to be disarming period, as in explosives like these. I wasn't talking about anything realated to WMD's. These weapons dont come close to WMD's.

We have 150,000 troops estimated in Iraq . link

What resistence are you talking about exactly? It took us less than a month to take over Iraq. Securing it is different like you said, but with elections in a month, and a growing iraqi military force, things seems to be progressing better IMO. The only thing we're dealing with now is a couple of hot spots, mainly Fallujah.

We'll talk come January and then you tell me things are improvig

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: conjur
LMAO!!


Tinfoil hat is on awfully tight tonight, isn't it, NightCrawler?

Don't need a tinfoil hat to see that CBS and the New York Times are bias, they want Bush to lose and are willing to look the other way as to what the facts are in a given story if it makes the President look bad.

Conjur you always tell people that Fox news is bias, is that your tinfoil hat talking?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

In the aftermath of Saddam?s ouster, U.S. troops looked for weapons of mass destruction in a variety of locales, including Al-Qaqaa. U.S. commanders say the military had already destroyed or secured and prepared to destroy more than 400,000 tons of explosives, artillery shells, mines and ammunition.

I don't really believe this claim.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the administration's first concern was whether the disappearance constituted a nuclear proliferation threat. He said it did not.

"We have destroyed more than 243,000 munitions" in Iraq, he said. "We've secured another nearly 163,000 that will be destroyed."

Notice the absence of the word "tons" . . . I find this claim believable.

Excerpts came from the FOXNews link.

Regardless, this approach is typical Bush administration BS. Why not just tell the truth? Bush's goal was regime change and everything else was secondary. It's the best explanation for most of what's happened since he came to office.

 

[villager]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: conjur
LMAO!!


Tinfoil hat is on awfully tight tonight, isn't it, NightCrawler?

Don't need a tinfoil hat to see that CBS and the New York Times are bias, they want Bush to lose and are willing to look the other way as to what the facts are in a given story if it makes the President look bad.

Conjur you always tell people that Fox news is bias, is that your tinfoil hat talking?

Why blame CBS and NY Times. Who started this whole story but the Iraq government. And that govt is saying the explosives were in the bunkers when the American army arrived. If anything the Iraq govt seems to be spreading out some anti Bush statements.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: villager

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: conjur
LMAO!!


Tinfoil hat is on awfully tight tonight, isn't it, NightCrawler?

Don't need a tinfoil hat to see that CBS and the New York Times are bias, they want Bush to lose and are willing to look the other way as to what the facts are in a given story if it makes the President look bad.

Conjur you always tell people that Fox news is bias, is that your tinfoil hat talking?

Why blame CBS and NY Times. Who started this whole story but the Iraq government. And that govt is saying the explosives were in the bunkers when the American army arrived. If anything the Iraq govt seems to be spreading out some anti Bush statements.

See my last post here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...8022&enterthread=y

Pics of the explosives from April 18. Well after the U.S. had taken over the area.