Wow. Very interesting theory. This is very likely, I believe. Btw, those weapons were transported by Viktor Bout. Have you seen "Lord of War"?

too true citizen smith

lose, or accidently arm a faction resistent of our foes.

either way, all we succesfully did was pour another truck load of gunpowder into a fireworks display.

We're going to bring safety, peace and security to Iraq, I have no doubt about that.
If you go to the centre of Australia, where not one single soul lives.. its pretty peaceful, secure and safe.

Hellmutt
Oh yeah, I know who you're talking about..now there's a fella with a lot to account for.

Agit8Chop
It's hardly anything new, we've done this so many times it's ridiculous. Providing firearms and bullets in the name of peace, is there anything more ludicrous?

The best part is when we piss off our rebel allies and they turn the weapons back on us.

It doesn't make any sense, unless of course you're in a position to profit from conflict. Then it makes all the sense in the world.

[edit on 19-8-2007 by WyrdeOne]

I dont know how much the real life "lords of war" charge for a single M16 but I'd bet you could get 5 AK's for the same price, so I say arm them well and let them be a bigger pain in Tehrans side

[edit on 8/19/2007 by Kr0n0s]

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
I dont know how much the real life "lords of war" charge for a single M16 but I'd bet you could get 5 AK's for the same price, so I say arm them well and let them be a bigger pain in Tehrans side

[edit on 8/19/2007 by Kr0n0s]

So funding militia groups is OK, so long as its against our enemies.
But when our enemies fund militia groups against us, that deserves a cruise missile?

Originally posted by Hellmutt
Wow. Very interesting theory. This is very likely, I believe. Btw, those weapons were transported by Viktor Bout. Have you seen "Lord of War"?

yes that was 1 intresting movie that sadly tells it how it most likely in reality is

now arming the kurds with turkey next door is not that good of an idea but the US wont realise that until its too late

[edit on 20-8-2007 by Agit8dChop]

I agree dont get me wrong.
If the enemy of my enemy is considered my friend you'd help.
If someone was trying to kill me, and I knew someone trying to kill him, id help them..

BUT

I then have no right to go around saying such and such is evil because he helps others.
You need to choose the lesser of two evils, fair enough.
But you then cannot preach about being a saint.

The US has no legs to stand on when we attack iran about helping insurgents in Iraq, because we are doing the exact same thing.

We've just declared the Revolutionary forces as a terrorist regime, because they help out Iraqi insurgents.
Yet, we're doing the same damn thing....

The whole iranian revolutionary guard situation SCARES ME to death.
When those british sailors were captured, we the west could now declare it a terrorist attack.

We know the iranians are content with capturing foreign navy personell should they venture across borders... now there we've labeled them appropriately it seems to me, straying across the border is all to convenient if we 'need' a terrorist attack.

Well the Kurds have been the big winners out of the Iraq mess and they will gain there own independent state after the coalition leaves Iraq. As for the missing arms they could have been diverted to the Kurds but it is just as likely or more likely that the arms fell into the giant sink hole of corruption. Either that or members of the insurgency infiltrated the local security forces and funnelled the arms into there respective groups.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
My thinking on this, though, is that the media often seems to mislead by misdirection, that is to say they point and scream in one direction, and reveal the truth by absence of coverage.

I think you have hit on something there in the larger context of the topic. IMO the American media in particular coverage of the war in Iraq is the Pentagon line which has been dumb down to suit there agenda. In general the media doesn't like to investigate or deal with complex issues that why in part we hear Fox News telling people that Al-Qaeda is responsible for every suicide bombing in Iraq.

For all I know, the Kurds are scapegoats to allow more thievery, not to mention that angle has two-birds-for-one-stone-appeal.

It is possible that insurgent groups want people to think that the US knowingly or unknowingly supplied arms to the Kurds however if that was the case wouldn't there be more "evidence " around ?
I wouldn't out the Kurds obtaining the arms without US approval . The Kurds are the smartest people in Iraq and they know what is going and they have been making preparations for a while now. The Kurds are probably planning on a 1948 style war.

While I cant say what happened to the arms for certain if I had to pick to pick an option I would say that the arms ended up in the hands of the insurgents via corruption and infiltration. In terms of corruption the arms could have changed hands via a under paid member of the security forces selling his AK47 or via an office selling an entire warehouse full of arms.

As for infiltration the various insurgent groups would look to infiltration the Iraqi security forces at al levels but the main target would be Non commissioned officers who man check points , any rank who has access to weapons and intel and of course any government departments in general.

Well that's just my 10 cents.