WAR: Professional Arms Looting in Iraq

Thanks Ace of base for those quote, I was laughing so hard I could not stop. We that has been following the "Bush MWDs" knows very well what is going on.

But as usual we have the poor misguided few that still believe every single lie that the Bush administration has told them.

And for the looting is only one person to hold accountable and at fault, the bush administration.

Regardless of what anybody said, I see a trend now of trying to call Sofi, "bias" you know this is getting ridiculous, If some can not post intelligent and meaninful information, don't even tried.

Sofi, another outstanding thread as usual.

Very GOOD! Ya'll can do it, now Prove to me that their are NOT WMD hidden in Iraq yet to be found.

While you try I'll give you a few hints.

Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists planned a chemical attack on Jordan's spy headquarters that could have killed 20,000 people, officials have said.

news.bbc.co.uk...
Hmm, where did that weapon come from?

In virtually every case - chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles - the United States has found the weapons and the programs that the Iraqi dictator successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors

www.insightmag.com...



www.cia.gov...

A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

# Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

# New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

# Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

# A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

# Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

# Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

# Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.

Originally posted by Moon Puppy

Very GOOD! Ya'll can do it, now Prove to me that their are NOT WMD hidden in Iraq yet to be found.

Moon puppy - this thread is about valuable equipment that disappeared from Iraq, presumably entered the black market and may contribute to waepons proliferation.

If you want to talk about WMDs that might be hidden in Iraq, there are several threads on ATS about just that - or you could start your own. But please stay on topic here.



.PS. Could you please also try and fix that link? It extends the margins out too far. Thanks.

Man....I love this guy: Christopher Hitchens!
The ripping to shreds of the NYT article is a must read.

My first question is this: How can it be that, on every page of every other edition for months now, the New York Times has been stating categorically that Iraq harbored no weapons of mass destruction? And there can hardly be a comedy-club third-rater or MoveOn.org activist in the entire country who hasn't stated with sarcastic certainty that the whole WMD fuss was a way of lying the American people into war.

Opppsss, not finished:

My second question is: What's all this about "looting"? The word is used throughout the long report, but here's what it's used to describe. "In four weeks from mid-April to mid-May of 2003 … teams with flatbed trucks and other heavy equipment moved systematically from site to site. … 'The first wave came for the machines,' Dr Araji said. 'The second wave, cables and cranes.' " Perhaps hedging the bet, the Times authors at this point refer to "organized looting."

But obviously, what we are reading about is a carefully planned military operation. The participants were not panicked or greedy civilians helping themselves—which is the customary definition of a "looter," especially in wartime. They were mechanized and mobile and under orders, and acting in a concerted fashion. Thus, if the story is factually correct—which we have no reason at all to doubt—then Saddam's Iraq was a fairly highly-evolved WMD state, with a contingency plan for further concealment and distribution of the weaponry in case of attack or discovery.

Please notice this mention, as indicated by a few others in this topic thread:

Before the war began, several of the administration's critics argued that an intervention would be too dangerous, either because Saddam Hussein would actually unleash his arsenal of WMD, or because he would divert it to third parties. That case at least had the merit of being serious (though I would want to argue that a regime capable of doing either thing was a regime that urgently needed to be removed). Since then, however, the scene has dissolved into one long taunt and jeer: "There were no WMD in Iraq. Liar, liar, pants on fire."

However, he does say:

Supporters of the overdue disarmament and liberation of Iraq, all the same, can't be complacent about this story. It seems flabbergasting that any of these sites were unsecured after the occupation, let alone for so long. Did the CIA yet again lack "human intelligence" as well as every other kind? The Bush administration staked the reputation of the United States on the matter. It won't do to say that "mistakes were made."

This Was Not Looting

Excellent article and rebuttal.




seekerof

Occurs Seekerof "mistakes were made" how can we forget mistakes like the prison scandals, how can we, not you right the media bias, not it was not looting it was just "trasportation orderly and re-arrange transportation of equipment it's just that they were good at what they were doing, that is why it was called "professional arms looting"

Nice try there my friend.

Marg, did Saddam have WMDs or components thereof or not?
A 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.
Please bear in mind the NYT's article, k?
Have a good one.

Nice rebuttal and attempt yourself.


seekerof

soficrow: As far as being on topic, Should we not establish that Iraq had WMD and WMD programs before the war to be able to say they were looted after the invasion?

I'll try to fix the link, edit botton did not appear...

Please advise how to edit a post where the edit button is not present. This post has it...

[edit on 15-3-2005 by Moon Puppy]

Finally!!!!!!!!

Provided by Seekerof
Supporters of the overdue disarmament and liberation of Iraq, all the same, can't be complacent about this story. It seems flabbergasting that any of these sites were unsecured after the occupation, let alone for so long. Did the CIA yet again lack "human intelligence" as well as every other kind? The Bush administration staked the reputation of the United States on the matter. It won't do to say that "mistakes were made."

I think attributing the 'oversight' to the CIA is anticlimatic at this point.....we have already made them responsible for their failures and now they have new representatives. This is a major faux paux committed by the U.S. military even if their is a highly sophisticated operation for the removal and transferring of weapons. I also take issue with the 'looting' being written off as 'chaotic months'........unacceptable in my book.

The weapons site was known. We should have been there.

We had a controlling placement in Iraq. Roads should have been check pointed. Granting them(a stretch for me considering the circumstances) the capacity to access and move their gear, there is no reason they should have been able to get anywhere.

Sadly, this issue isn't going to be recognized as it should in the mass media. This, imo, is more than a mistake. I'm thinking more along the lines of professional negligence. I'm not complacent regarding this story, but I fear that this is going to blow over like everything else.



[edit on 15-3-2005 by MemoryShock]

Originally posted by MemoryShock

the weapons site was known. We should have been there.

[edit on 15-3-2005 by MemoryShock]

You forgot something........the priority was not to secure the "sites of possible MWDs"

It was to "secure the oil fields"...............remember, for the "after invasion and reconstruction"

It was to pay for the "cost of war"

Does anybody knows what happened to the Iraqi oil?

Originally posted by marg6043
You forgot something........the priority was not to secure the "sites of possible MWDs"

It was to "secure the oil fields"...............remember, for the "after invasion and reconstruction"

It was to pay for the "cost of war"

You are right, marg.......however, I'm attempting to attack the issues of concern via a different route.........since everyone expects the usual rigor morals to be expressed, I'm trying to find other means..........Though not the Bush Administration per se(spelling), government is a monster that has evolved beyond its original idea...........to offer an off topic point to prove my assertion.......why are the laws and literatures of our country drawn up such that the average citizen can't or won't try to understand them? Logic questions such as this are interesting waypoints to picking away at the system. The system is biased and it is thriving on a divided population......

Originally posted by MemoryShock

The weapons site was known. We should have been there.

Probably a typo - but you do know that 90 sites were looted, right? ...Even if it wasn't possible to guard all of them, there is just no way that quantity of equipment should have been able to cross checkpoints and borders.


.

OK let's set aside how Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq and at the same time allowing them (WMDs) to be looted.

Are you all expecting that an Army establish control checkpoints as they move in an Armored Column? Do you think that MPs travel with an attacking division to setup road blocks? You know this is not some computer game. The advance on Baghdad was the much faster than anyone planned on. Sure there would be holes left behind where terrorist could come behind and pull this sort of thing. It’s call “Fog of War”. What it boils down to is you people are EXPECTING perfection from this administration and this war. I hate to be the one to break it to ya but war ain’t perfect.

Well I guess we could nuke the crap out of them and kill them all but that’s a bad PR and everything…

Originally posted by soficrow
Probably a typo - but you do know that 90 sites were looted, right? ...Even if it wasn't possible to guard all of them, there is just no way that quantity of equipment should have been able to cross checkpoints and borders.

Sorry for the late response, life has a funny way about it.........


Yes, I am aware of the many sites that were looted.........however.........

IMO, the absolute priority for the military should have been those weapons sites seeing as how they were the "popular reasoning" for war. Before the war, we had a veritable certainty that Iraq possessed WMD's. The first line of business should have been to secure these areas for the procurement of these WMD's.

WMD's were not found. All fine and good but, the fact that these sites were left unattended with other dangerous materials is not a light mistake. To prevent terrorism is to deny them weapons. That should have included a reasonable amount of intel and at least surveillance of these sites. We have satellites!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Knowledge of these areas should have been a no-brainer. Percieved activity could be acted upon.

As a last resort, checkpoints on roads could have been effective.

BTW, the specification of one site is in regards to the reference that this highly organized operation made out with WMD components.........would a site this high on the importance list be unguarded? To my utter shock, apparently.........yes. This seriously undermines the credibility and viablity of our military intelligence, imo. With the time we had to plan an invasion in tandem with our previous engagement/intelligence, there is no excuse for this kind of slip-up..............if indeed, it was a slip-up.....