Report: U.S. troops watched weapons-site looting

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Explosives were looted from the Al-Qaqaa ammunitions site in Iraq while outnumbered U.S. soldiers assigned to guard the materials watched helplessly, soldiers told the Los Angeles Times.

About a dozen U.S. troops were guarding the sprawling facility in the weeks after the April 2003 fall of Baghdad when Iraqi looters raided the site, the newspaper quoted a group of unidentified soldiers as saying.

U.S. Army reservists and National Guardsmen witnessed the looting and some soldiers sent messages to commanders in Baghdad requesting help, but received no reply, they said.

"It was complete chaos. It was looting like L.A. during the Rodney King riots," one officer said.

The eyewitness accounts reported by the Times are the first provided by U.S. soldiers and bolster claims that the U.S. military had failed to safeguard the powerful explosives, the newspaper said.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/04/iraq.weapons.ap/index.html

I dont even think it would have mattered. Logic is beyond the middle-America right-wingers.

Though they are jobless, without healthcare, and are watching their kids die in an unnecessary foreign conflict, they still voted for their bumbling Commander-in-Chief

Wait, why didn't we have more troops protecting the weapons, which were the supposed reason we went to war?

Oh, thats right, because they were guarding the oil.

I dont even think it would have mattered. Logic is beyond the middle-America right-wingers.

Though they are jobless, without healthcare, and are watching their kids die in an unnecessary foreign conflict, they still voted for their bumbling Commander-in-Chief

Thats a blanket statement that I don't think needs to be made. :rolleyes:

I dont even think it would have mattered. Logic is beyond the middle-America right-wingers.

Though they are jobless, without healthcare, and are watching their kids die in an unnecessary foreign conflict, they still voted for their bumbling Commander-in-Chief


What are you, crazy? Of course he should have won; based on his moral values alone! :rolleyes: Logic is well beyond middle america. Hey... anyone else notice that the four states most directly affected by 9/11, New York, Penn, New Jersey, and California all voted Kerry?

-Chris

What are you, crazy? Of course he should have won; based on his moral values alone! :rolleyes: Logic is well beyond middle america. Hey... anyone else notice that the four states most directly affected by 9/11, New York, Penn, New Jersey, and California all voted Kerry?

-Chris

Weird. I wouldn't have said New Jersey or Cali. I would have left it at NY, PA, and added DC.

My bad. I shouldn't have left out DC. I included NJ because a large number of people in the twin towers actually lived in NJ, along with some of the port authority. CA just barely makes the list, but keep in mind where those planes were intended to go. Many on board were Californians.

-Chris

Obviously it is an over-generalization... but why shouldnt it be made? Am I unpartiotic for saying it???

I dont even think it would have mattered. Logic is beyond the middle-America right-wingers.

At least they feel safer from all the queers out to get them.

Did anyone watch the daliy show yesterday.

Steve Colbert thanked the "red states" for saving them (the blue states) from themselves.

Sarcasm at it's finest.

-Chris

What are you, crazy? Of course he should have won; based on his moral values alone! :rolleyes: Logic is well beyond middle america. Hey... anyone else notice that the four states most directly affected by 9/11, New York, Penn, New Jersey, and California all voted Kerry?

-Chris

I guess we can include yourself into "middle america". I'm curious if anyone else noticed that the 4 states you just listed have voted pre-dominately Democrat in past elections regardless of 9/11.

I dont even think it would have mattered. Logic is beyond the middle-America right-wingers.

Though they are jobless, without healthcare, and are watching their kids die in an unnecessary foreign conflict, they still voted for their bumbling Commander-in-Chief

Well, I'd heard that the states that supported Bush happen to be where most of our military members come from, so it IS really up to them.

You can say that our economy is fueled by the "blue"states, but we rely on those "right-wingers" to protect our asses.

You can say that our economy is fueled by the "blue"states, but we rely on those "right-wingers" to protect our asses.

Which is really funny because of all the people in government that are so quick to put us to war hardly any of them actually have kids that have to fight.

I guess we can include yourself into "middle america". I'm curious if anyone else noticed that the 4 states you just listed have voted pre-dominately Democrat in past elections regardless of 9/11.


I wasn't saying they hadn't. I was just pointing out that the states most directly affected by the terrorists attacks still didn't buy into the Bush = safety nonsence.

-Chris

Which is really funny because of all the people in government that are so quick to put us to war hardly any of them actually have kids that have to fight.


Exactly... sad paradox

I wasn't saying they hadn't. I was just pointing out that the states most directly affected by the terrorists attacks still didn't buy into the Bush = safety nonsence.

-Chris

And I was simply pointing out that regardless of Bush's stance on terror and agenda (or really any other Republican candidates in the past 15 years), those states would still vote Democrat.

Which is really funny because of all the people in government that are so quick to put us to war hardly any of them actually have kids that have to fight.

That is true. Most of them don't worry about money like the rest of us, either.

Which is really funny because of all the people in government that are so quick to put us to war hardly any of them actually have kids that have to fight.

Or went to vietnam themselves when it was there turn....

Or went to vietnam themselves when it was there turn....

Are you talking about Bush or Clinton, or both?

Did Clinton get us into a war, ignore what everyone told him even doing something his father wouldn't do?

380 metric tons of explosives... coming soon to an Army unit near you!

Did Clinton get us into a war, ignore what everyone told him even doing something his father wouldn't do?

I seem to remember Clinton getting us into a war in Bosnia.

I seem to remember Clinton getting us into a war in Bosnia.

Weren't we in Bosnia acting as the UN's right arm?

That wasn't a conflict that we went into for things that the administration thought were true that turned out to be false.

Were'nt we in Iraq to enforce a UN resolution?

Were'nt we in Iraq to enforce a UN resolution?

The UN resolution was to send in inspectors not a full ground assult. The UN publicly denounced our war with Iraq.

The UN resolution was to send in inspectors not a full ground assult. The UN publicly denounced our war with Iraq.

Inspectors that were kicked out on top of prevented from carrying out inspections to the satisfaction of the UN. What happens when diplomacy fails? Diplomacy in Iraq was a dead horse in my opinion lets stop beating it. The UN didn't back us because their arrangement with Sadams regime was to their liking.

Inspectors that were kicked out on top of prevented from carrying out inspections to the satisfaction of the UN. What happens when diplomacy fails? Diplomacy in Iraq was a dead horse in my opinion lets stop beating it. The UN didn't back us because their arrangement with Sadams regime was to their liking.

The only reason the UN inspectors were so unsucessful in finding WMD's is because they didn't have any. Diplomacy showed that Saddam didn't have all these terrible weapons but the Bush administration didn't want to hear it.

Inspectors that were kicked out on top of prevented from carrying out inspections to the satisfaction of the UN. What happens when diplomacy fails? Diplomacy in Iraq was a dead horse in my opinion lets stop beating it. The UN didn't back us because their arrangement with Sadams regime was to their liking.


You obviously forget that WE kicked them out. And your point that we are enforcing UN resolution is laughable at best, if we head down that thought pattern of yours we should be attacking Israel next. The UN didn't back us because we didn't SHOW valid proof to attack. Obviously they where RIGHT and WE where wrong. Or do you so blindly forget that no WMD where found, no connection to Bin Laden was found, what else do you wanna hear!?

The only reason the UN inspectors were so unsucessful in finding WMD's is because they didn't have any. Diplomacy showed that Saddam didn't have all these terrible weapons but the Bush administration didn't want to hear it.

They were prevented from coming to the conclusion that there were no WMD. Thank you Sadam.

The only reason the UN inspectors were so unsucessful in finding WMD's is because they didn't have any. Diplomacy showed that Saddam didn't have all these terrible weapons but the Bush administration didn't want to hear it.

So it's ok that the UN Inspectors couldn't inspect where they pleased and (not knowing what we know now) run the risk of taking Saddam's (a man who has a history of using WMDs on his own people and despises the US and free world as a whole) word of dismantlement (that he failed to provide proof for)? Sorry, I personally feel that is an unacceptable risk at the time.

You obviously forget that WE kicked them out.

We didn't kick out any inspectors, although they were probably advised to leave before the fighting started.

And your point that we are enforcing UN resolution is laughable at best, if we head down that thought pattern of yours we should be attacking Israel next.

What the hell are you talking about? Thought pattern?

The UN didn't back us because we didn't SHOW valid proof to attack. Obviously they where RIGHT and WE where wrong. Or do you so blindly forget that no WMD where found, no connection to Bin Laden was found, what else do you wanna hear!?

As I said above.

They were prevented from coming to the conclusion that there were no WMD. Thank you Sadam.

I can't believe this discussion is still going on. People are going to believe what they want to believe. I'm tired of arguing, so F it. "We're" always good, "they're" always bad. Never mind facts.
I think I'm with Bruce Lee from now on, let's just nuke the whole f'ing planet and let the few who survive try to sort things out.

So it's ok that the UN Inspectors couldn't inspect where they pleased and (not knowing what we know now) run the risk of taking Saddam's (a man who has a history of using WMDs on his own people and despises the US and free world as a whole) word of dismantlement (that he failed to provide proof for)? Sorry, I personally feel that is an unacceptable risk at the time.

Thanks Mr. Bush.... great party line

The weapon inspectors said there were no WMD's. Not just Saddam.

Thanks Mr. Bush.... great party line

The weapon inspectors said there were no WMD's. Not just Saddam.

Are you failing to realize that the weapon inspectors were not allowed EVERYWHERE they wanted to inspect? I really fail to see what's so hard to understand about that.

What the hell are you talking about? Thought pattern?


Go read up on how many resolutions Israel has listened too.

Are you failing to realize that the weapon inspectors were not allowed EVERYWHERE they wanted to inspect? I really fail to see what's so hard to understand about that.

And what you fail to realize is that the great WMD threat wasn't actually why Bush went into Iraq. He just used that to make us follow like mules.

The real reason was to put out Saddam regardless of the weapons.

Thats why on March, 17 2003 he said either Saddam must leave the country or be invaded. And 2 days later war begins.

Go read up on how many resolutions Israel has listened too.

A country besieged by terrorists, not listening to resolutions preventing them from protecting themselves against said terrorists! You don't say!?

A country besieged by terrorists, not listening to resolutions preventing them from protecting themselves against said terrorists! You don't say!?

Israeli terrorists using US weapons, Palestinian terrorists using what's left of Soviet weapons, it doesn't matter because it's still "them" and "we" are better. Nuke them all. Why not? Let it rip...

A country besieged by terrorists, not listening to resolutions preventing them from protecting themselves against said terrorists! You don't say!?


Again you don't know anything about the subject? Israel uses terrorism too, the big difference they use jets and tanks. While Palestinian are blowing themselves up. And not ALL the UN resolutions that they don't listen to are about "terrorist". Go read up on the conflict both parties are at fault. So what now?

Israel uses terrorism too, the big difference they use jets and tanks.

Given to them by the United States of America. If the PLO hadn't resorted to terrorism decades ago, I believe the world would be a much different place right now. Both sides are to blame, but neither will admit they have made mistakes and neither are willing to compromise. Kind of like our current administration.