T Nation

Looting in Iraq?

Oh, I see your saying I’m lying…
well here’s one story about those kids from the Heritage Foundation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48543-2004May22.html
I know its the post and all, but this article is the fairest I could find.

And as to killing terrorists, I would agree that you want to kill rats, But you continue to try to miss the real point. If you want to kill all the rats, normally you would go to the place rats were and kill them instead of going to place they are not, then start breeding rats and set up a giant renewable rat nest(That Porter Goss says will last at least 10 years), and then start killing these new rats.

Ya see? That’s just not real smart!

[quote]100meters wrote:

100

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I am saying you are making that comment up. Their are no children overseeing the reconstruction in Iraq. The military has a lot of young men. So do the contractors. No contractor go that job by posting on the Heritage website.

As to killing terrorists. Think rats. Want to kill a lot of rats, go to where they live. You don’t go stalking them. Read Tommy Franks book. Anything by James Dunnigan, the strategy is pretty straight forward.

Oh, I see your saying I’m lying…
well here’s one story about those kids from the Heritage Foundation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48543-2004May22.html
I know its the post and all, but this article is the fairest I could find.

And as to killing terrorists, I would agree that you want to kill rats, But you continue to try to miss the real point. If you want to kill all the rats, normally you would go to the place rats were and kill them instead of going to place they are not, then start breeding rats and set up a giant renewable rat nest(That Porter Goss says will last at least 10 years), and then start killing these new rats.

Ya see? That’s just not real smart!
[/quote]

Should we wait and let them come over here before we kill them? Perhaps do nothing or maybe the French will handle it for us?

The Post…not exactly the paper of record. Everyone I know associated with reconstruction seems top shelf to me and I don’t see any kids involved with it.

don’t think any of the big boys are hiring kids unless they are recently discharged military with a specific skill set.

100 let’s clear the air here. GWB could cure cancer, feed the hungry and find a vaccine for aids and you and your posse would still find something wrong with him. It’s about hate contempt and jealousy and your arguments have been proven wrong over and over again.

It’s not that I find it boring to continually refute you…it’s just becoming tedious and boring.

Perhaps a topic and a solution from you would be more challenging?

[quote]

Should we wait and let them come over here before we kill them? Perhaps do nothing or maybe the French will handle it for us?[quote]

You just breezed over reality again here Hedo. The problem with Iraq is that it is creating more terrorists! And no, I don’t want to do nothing, that’s what Bush did when he took office, and that didn’t work out so well.

[quote]
The Post…not exactly the paper of record. Everyone I know associated with reconstruction seems top shelf to me and I don’t see any kids involved with it.

[quote]

Just breeze by again, you said I made it up, I didn’t, it’s true, and recent college grads who had one thing in common, posting their resumes at the Heritage Foundation, is not evidence of “top shelf”

[quote]
don’t think any of the big boys are hiring kids unless they are recently discharged military with a specific skill set.

[quote]

Again, can you read Hedo?

[quote]
100 let’s clear the air here. GWB could cure cancer, feed the hungry and find a vaccine for aids and you and your posse would still find something wrong with him. It’s about hate contempt and jealousy and your arguments have been proven wrong over and over again.

[quote]

Yes he could cure cancer, feed the hungry, and find a vaccine for aids, but instead he does the exact opposite.

against stem-cell research, more people now in poverty(women and children leading the way), and aids; instead of using our aids money on generics he insisted on selling out to the pharmas, the generics are one third the cost! That’s two more people saved for freaking free?
That is just stupid!

Imagine if instead of lying to me and you about the S.S. crisis, and trying to borrow trillions from china and japan to bankrupt a program that won’t be in the red until maybe 40-50 years from now(if we grow the economy at 1.8% per year—highly freaking unlikely we normally grow twice this rate)imagine instead he said Alzheimer’s was a crisis and we have to do something about it right now.

[quote]
It’s not that I find it boring to continually refute you…it’s just becoming tedious and boring.

[quote]

I’m not sure you’ve refuted anything yet, in fact I’m refuting you. But no amount of evidence will convince you to not cheer for this neo-con, anti-conservative, anti-liberal administration, so I ask what is it about neo-conservatism that you agree with?-

[quote]hedo wrote:

How big ar my pom-poms for Bush. Gez imagine supporting a sitting president during war time. I’m old enough to remember that used to be the right thing to do. Too bad the bias and hate clouds your judgement.[/quote]

What makes that the inherently right thing to do? There are certainly times when it is, and just as many when it’s not. This might be what I have the biggest objection to of everything in this topic.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The kinds of machinery at the various sites included equipment that could be used to make missile parts, chemical weapons or centrifuges essential for enriching uranium for atom bombs. [/quote]

Is it me or is that kind of vague. Parts for making centrifuges? I’m getting skeptical for all news about Iraq, pro or con. And BB, there is definitely a difference between WMDs and equipment that can POTENTIALLY be used to make them. It’s something to be wary of, but it’s hardly the same.

[quote]veruvius wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
The kinds of machinery at the various sites included equipment that could be used to make missile parts, chemical weapons or centrifuges essential for enriching uranium for atom bombs.

Is it me or is that kind of vague. Parts for making centrifuges? I’m getting skeptical for all news about Iraq, pro or con. And BB, there is definitely a difference between WMDs and equipment that can POTENTIALLY be used to make them. It’s something to be wary of, but it’s hardly the same.[/quote]

True, but here are some of the relevant quotes from the original NYT article:

[i]In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein’s most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government’s first extensive comments on the looting.

The Iraqi official, Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry, said it appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants in search of valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away.

Dr. Araji said his account was based largely on observations by government employees and officials who either worked at the sites or lived near them.

“They came in with the cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites,” Dr. Araji said. “They knew what they were doing; they knew what they want. This was sophisticated looting.”

The threat posed by these types of facilities was cited by the Bush administration as a reason for invading Iraq, but the installations were left largely unguarded by allied forces in the chaotic months after the invasion.

Dr. Araji’s statements came just a week after a United Nations agency disclosed that approximately 90 important sites in Iraq had been looted or razed in that period.

Satellite imagery analyzed by two United Nations groups - the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, or Unmovic - confirms that some of the sites identified by Dr. Araji appear to be totally or partly stripped, senior officials at those agencies said. Those officials said they could not comment on all of Dr. Araji’s assertions, because the groups had been barred from Iraq since the invasion.

For nearly a year, the two agencies have sent regular reports to the United Nations Security Council detailing evidence of the dismantlement of Iraqi military installations and, in a few cases, the movement of Iraqi gear to other countries. In addition, a report issued last October by the chief American arms inspector in Iraq, Charles A. Duelfer, told of evidence of looting at crucial sites.

The disclosures by the Iraqi ministry, however, added new information about the thefts, detailing the timing, the material taken and the apparent skill shown by the thieves.

Dr. Araji said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq’s dormant program on unconventional weapons. After the invasion, occupation forces found no unconventional arms, and C.I.A. inspectors concluded that the effort had been largely abandoned after the Persian Gulf war in 1991. [/i]

[quote]veruvius wrote:
hedo wrote:

How big ar my pom-poms for Bush. Gez imagine supporting a sitting president during war time. I’m old enough to remember that used to be the right thing to do. Too bad the bias and hate clouds your judgement.

What makes that the inherently right thing to do? There are certainly times when it is, and just as many when it’s not. This might be what I have the biggest objection to of everything in this topic.[/quote]

V

Too me just common sense.

I see your point, I just disagree with your position.

As much as you see the Conservatives blindly following Bush…we see the mirror image, the Libs blindly tearing down and complaining about everything the administration does.