pajarito 0 #76 October 29, 2004 QuoteThe irony is that if there were careful analysis performed in advance of the rush to war, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Nice diversion tactic but why don't we stick to the discussion at hand. Shall we? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #77 October 29, 2004 >it would be very unlikely, given the amounts that we're talking about and > the equipment it would take to move it, that it could be taken without our > knowing it. That's the part I just don't get. Looters took tons of uranium ore - dismantled entire buildings and sold the scrap - emptied musems of art - without us noticing. Looters carried two tons of enriched (i.e. highly radioactive) uranium out of a facility we left open. Why is it easy to dismantle a building and sell it without us noticing, or cart off 400 tons of uranium ore without us seeing them do it, but hard to move crates? From the Washington Post in July: ------------------------------------ Nuclear experts yesterday questioned a decision by the Energy Department to leave in Iraq nearly 400 tons of natural uranium that could be enriched for a nuclear weapon or used to build a radioactive "dirty bomb." . . . . The International Atomic Energy Agency kept Iraq's uranium under seal in storage facilities for more than a decade before the U.S. invasion in March 2003, but the storerooms were looted when Baghdad fell several weeks later. The IAEA was allowed back into Iraq to help clean up the facility, and it urged U.S. officials to protect Iraq's former weapons sites from further looting. But in recent months, radioactive equipment and Iraqi weapons components have been showing up in scrap yards and ports in Europe and the Middle East. ------------------------------ >They've also said that there was mostly military traffic on the road > during that time. That's like saying there were some cops on I-5 last Wednesday so no one could get away with speeding. >Probability of looting? I'd say maybe some but not > nearly as much as Kerry is accusing. There was that much and more, per news accounts of looting in other locations. The country was stripped of anything sellable. There are dozens of accounts of people stealing entire warehouses down to the slab, carting off machine tools, weapons, glass, copper wire etc. >Negligence on the side of Bush? I think not. Like I said, I agree there. It was just a mistake. I will be most impressed once we admit that. Once we admit it, we can do something about it - we recovered those two tons of enriched uranium after we noticed they were missing. We might be able to do the same for at least some of this explosive, that is if we don't keep going off and saying it's all lies, or blaming the russians or whatnot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #78 October 29, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe irony is that if there were careful analysis performed in advance of the rush to war, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Nice diversion tactic but why don't we stick to the discussion at hand. Shall we? That is the discussion at hand and the point that we're trying to make. No one is claiming that Bush was personally responsible for securing this one particular site. What we are saying is that this particular site, and many others were not secured because of the poor planning and goal setting defined by Bush due to his artificial deadline for invasion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #79 October 29, 2004 QuoteThat's the part I just don't get. Looters took tons of uranium ore - dismantled entire buildings and sold the scrap - emptied musems of art - without us noticing. Looters carried two tons of enriched (i.e. highly radioactive) uranium out of a facility we left open. Why is it easy to dismantle a building and sell it without us noticing, or cart off 400 tons of uranium ore without us seeing them do it, but hard to move crates? According to this General, most of the traffic on the road and in the area was military. There was a presence. Therefore, there would be plenty of witnesses around to see stuff in those amounts being trucked away. QuoteThat's like saying there were some cops on I-5 last Wednesday so no one could get away with speeding. No………it’s not. QuoteThere was that much and more, per news accounts of looting in other locations. The country was stripped of anything sellable. There are dozens of accounts of people stealing entire warehouses down to the slab, carting off machine tools, weapons, glass, copper wire etc. Right, but apparently, according to our military, we had our eyes on this area. That unless you’d like to continue to discredit our military forces and keep insinuating that they’re incompetent. QuoteLike I said, I agree there. It was just a mistake. I will be most impressed once we admit that. Once we admit it, we can do something about it - we recovered those two tons of enriched uranium after we noticed they were missing. We might be able to do the same for at least some of this explosive, that is if we don't keep going off and saying it's all lies, or blaming the russians or whatnot. Call a mistake and blame it on someone when there’s cause. However, be sure about the facts before you do it. Certainly don’t exploit it for political gain with something as incredible as this. There’s no sense at all in “apologizing” for something when you’re not at fault. Unless, of course, you’re just trying to keep your wife happy and it’s just not worth the effort to fight about something. I think it’s interesting how you word some things. You’ve already made up your mind that (1) A mistake was made and (2) The US is at fault. You are pretty set on this even before we know all the facts of the event. i.e. (“I will be most impressed once we admit that. Once we admit it, we can do something about it.) It seems to me that many of your statements indicate being the first to jump on the “hate America” bandwagon most of the time. Rarely is America given the benefit of the doubt in a situation. Is the Democrat hatred at such a level that it supercedes ones patriotism and support of our military? They’re doing one hell of a job. The Special Forces war in Afghanistan was unprecedented. A few Green Beret teams (with the aid of some air support) did what they were trained to do by supplying, training, and fighting alongside guerilla forces (warlord forces) and took over an entire country in a matter of weeks. Something the Russians couldn’t do in a matter of years. I’d cut them a bit of slack if I were you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #80 October 29, 2004 QuoteThat is the discussion at hand and the point that we're trying to make. No one is claiming that Bush was personally responsible for securing this one particular site. What we are saying is that this particular site, and many others were not secured because of the poor planning and goal setting defined by Bush due to his artificial deadline for invasion. John Kerry is in fact claiming exactly that in his last week campaign against Bush. It’s his primary focus surprisingly. Anyway, what you said is really watering this whole discussion down into a pile of mush. The argument about Al-Qaqaa doesn’t really have legs to stand on and now it’s turned to generalities. Speculation about what Kerry might have done better. However, given his record on defense, I don’t think a reasonable person would conclude that we’d be better off. Saddam would most likely still be in power, he’d continue to be a threat, and he’d probably own Kuwait. Hell, we might still be in The Cold War. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #81 October 29, 2004 Are you trying to tell me that a presidential candidate is exagerating a story to make it look worse for his opponent!!! I'm in shock. I could give a shit what Kerry is saying about it during his dog and pony show. What I care about is the lack of ability and foresite in Bush that this is just another example of in a long chain of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #82 October 29, 2004 >According to this General, most of the traffic on the road and in the > area was military. There was a presence. Therefore, there would be > plenty of witnesses around to see stuff in those amounts being > trucked away. There should have been. There were not; they were all busy fighting a war. Military facilities were looted down to the foundations. >Right, but apparently, according to our military, we had our eyes on this >area. That unless you’d like to continue to discredit our military forces > and keep insinuating that they’re incompetent. They are certainly not incompetent. They were doing their job, which was taking Baghdad. It was not being traffic cops watching the road for people with suspicious crates in their trucks. >Call a mistake and blame it on someone when there’s cause. No, you call something a mistake when it's a mistake, not when you figure out who to blame. It was a mistake to let explosives and nuclear material fall into the wrong hands. If you can't admit that, you can't fix it, and US servicemen will pay the price for our inability to admit fault. >I think it’s interesting how you word some things. You’ve already made > up your mind that (1) A mistake was made and (2) The US is at fault. It's not a question of who to blame, it's an issue of FIXING THE PROBLEM. Unless you think that allowing military facilities to be razed by looters, and explosives, munitions and uranium carried off is a good thing, that is. Admit the mistake and fix the problem. Figure out who to blame, and play the whole political game, later. Security of our troops in Iraq comes first. >It seems to me that many of your statements indicate being the first >to jump on the “hate America” bandwagon most of the time. No, I'm on the "let's win the war" bandwagon. Pretending we never make mistakes is one of the best ways to lose. If I (and my coworkers) took that attitude in my job, my company would be out of business in a few years. >Is the Democrat hatred at such a level that it supercedes ones >patriotism and support of our military? Is the republican desire to spin this into something good so strong that they would actually not care that explosives are being looted and used against our troops? Is political spin, and getting GWB re-elected at all costs, worth the lives of US servicemen? >They’re doing one hell of a job. Agreed. We have the best military force in the world. If we needed guards and traffic cops, we have good ones too - and we should send them if needed, rather than pretend there is no problem with looting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #83 October 29, 2004 QuoteAre you trying to tell me that a presidential candidate is exagerating a story to make it look worse for his opponent!!! I'm in shock. I could give a shit what Kerry is saying about it during his dog and pony show. What I care about is the lack of ability and foresite in Bush that this is just another example of in a long chain of them. And that is your opinon, however, this story is a load of crap. And it's all Kerry's got to finish his race. Pathetic. I'd say you aught to check out Kerry's Senate record, however, I guess you already have. Impressive Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #84 October 29, 2004 >however, this story is a load of crap. "There were no explosives there!" "Here's a video of the explosives." "Maybe it wasn't Al Qaqaa." "Here's a picture from the video showing the shipping address on the box." "Well, maybe the UN didn't seal them." "Here's a picture of the UN seals on the outside of the building." "Maybe the Russians stole em first!" "The administration has backed off that claim." "Well, maybe we took em then! Ever think of THAT?" Reminds me of the 'swedish penis pump' bit from Austin Powers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #85 October 29, 2004 QuoteThere should have been. There were not; they were all busy fighting a war. Military facilities were looted down to the foundations. Apparently, this General thinks otherwise concerning Al-Qaqaa. I think he’d be more authoritative than you in this instance. Maybe not. I don’t know your security clearance. QuoteThey are certainly not incompetent. They were doing their job, which was taking Baghdad. It was not being traffic cops watching the road for people with suspicious crates in their trucks. You have no idea exactly what their stated intelligence requirements were. QuoteNo, you call something a mistake when it's a mistake, not when you figure out who to blame. It was a mistake to let explosives and nuclear material fall into the wrong hands. If you can't admit that, you can't fix it, and US servicemen will pay the price for our inability to admit fault. The fact is, we don’t know all the facts Bill. It could be that it was not a mistake and that our own people moved and disposed of the munitions as they were supposed to do. You and I just don’t know for sure. Again, I’m talking about Al-Qaqaa and won’t submit to your attempt at diverting from the topic. QuoteIt's not a question of who to blame, it's an issue of FIXING THE PROBLEM. Unless you think that allowing military facilities to be razed by looters, and explosives, munitions and uranium carried off is a good thing, that is. In the instance of Al-Qaqaa, you simply don’t know. You and John Kerry shouldn’t jump to conclusions before you know all the facts. It’s just a good idea. QuoteAdmit the mistake and fix the problem. Figure out who to blame, and play the whole political game, later. Security of our troops in Iraq comes first. Again, you don’t know for sure that it was a “mistake.” QuoteNo, I'm on the "let's win the war" bandwagon. Pretending we never make mistakes is one of the best ways to lose. If I (and my coworkers) took that attitude in my job, my company would be out of business in a few years. Creating “mistakes” for the sake of politics is just plain wrong and counterproductive. QuoteIs the republican desire to spin this into something good so strong that they would actually not care that explosives are being looted and used against our troops? Is political spin, and getting GWB re-elected at all costs, worth the lives of US servicemen? See, you’re all comfortable with your conclusion that you refuse to take in any further evidence. Does that show blinding bias? You tell me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #86 October 29, 2004 Quote>however, this story is a load of crap. "There were no explosives there!" "Here's a video of the explosives." "Maybe it wasn't Al Qaqaa." "Here's a picture from the video showing the shipping address on the box." "Well, maybe the UN didn't seal them." "Here's a picture of the UN seals on the outside of the building." "Maybe the Russians stole em first!" "The administration has backed off that claim." "Well, maybe we took em then! Ever think of THAT?" Reminds me of the 'swedish penis pump' bit from Austin Powers. Take it all in, mark off what doesn't fit, come up with the truth. It's all very logical. Again, you have no idea what really happened, don't have evidence to prove conclusively who's at fault or if there was any fault at all, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, NEITHER DOES JOHN KERRY! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #87 October 29, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe irony is that if there were careful analysis performed in advance of the rush to war, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Nice diversion tactic but why don't we stick to the discussion at hand. Shall we? OK, back to Russians: The Bush administration's claim that Russians removed the stuff is a fabrication, an untruth, "bad intel", and a lie, all rolled into one. Discuss.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
