Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Al-Qaqaa complete chaos

  1. Nov 4, 2004 #1

    plover

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Rumsfeld does have a certain genius for engineering farce.
    Though like many impresarios his management style is a bit heavy-handed:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 4, 2004 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Quick question: how many pickup-trucks does it take to carry away 380 tons of explosives??
     
  4. Nov 5, 2004 #3
    I think ford said that a truck could carry 5 tons when properly equipped.
    380/5=76 trucks
    heh. Did they not expect to get it all, or do they have something more heavy duty than Ford (not hard in my opinion)

    note: I know nothing about trucks so don't take my word for this.
     
  5. Nov 5, 2004 #4
    OK, fair assumption.
    Yet, I am not driving a 5 tons of explosive loaded truck, in a place where roads are not so... flat. If you drive this, remember : "take it smoooooth...."
     
  6. Nov 5, 2004 #5

    plover

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Not a clue. But it's not a terribly useful question considering that the article notes the soldiers as saying that "the looting happened over several weeks in late April and early May 2003". Why do you make these responses without reading the entire document?
     
  7. Nov 5, 2004 #6
    It is not a question of reading the document. It is a question wether this document deals with truth or propaganda. Is there not good points for GWB in this story ? Like : "Now they do have weapons"

    So the document is either not true, or accounts for a terrible terrible mistake. Which is better ? The army could answer : We commited worse mistakes before, this is just another one.

    As a result, there is a third possibility : explosives are really gone, but this happened "under control". Fortunately, i do not beleive in conspiracy theories...
     
  8. Nov 5, 2004 #7

    plover

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    humanino:

    The explosives that are of most concern (RDX and HMX) are easy to transport.

    According to the New York Times:
     
  9. Nov 5, 2004 #8
    OK, I'll ride them :smile:

    Another quote from your last link :
    which makes it clear that today occupation is justified, and help from other nations more likely to be eventually obtained. If your president tells ours Whatever our previous disagreements : the situation today needs urgent support. It is getting dangerous and more and more out of control he might get our troups to go there.

    So maybe the control was really lost at some point, or maybe in a certain aspects this is really convenient for diplomatic reasons.
     
  10. Nov 5, 2004 #9

    plover

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    My comment was referring only to Russ' response. His question seems to imply that he thought that the "100 vehicles" mentioned in my original quote had to take everything in one trip.

    The events in question are from April and May 2003—this is not a new danger. If terrorists wanted to remove substantial amounts of these materials from Iraq they've had plenty of time. There is also a good chance that these explosives are being used in the roadside bombs being used against the troops currently in Iraq. The main point here is this problem was caused by the lack of a plan to secure many important sites during the invasion combined with the use of too few troops to make securing such sites even possible.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2004
  11. Nov 5, 2004 #10

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So all the explanations about this event happening before the army got there, was just more of the same - a sackful of politically motivated lies ? :grumpy:

    I only hope that Rummy gets the boot...and Wolfie too !
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2004
  12. Nov 5, 2004 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Allow me... :biggrin:

    THIS 25' moving van has a capacity of 3 tons.

    THIS medium-large pickup truck has a cargo capacity of 2/3 of a ton(Smurf, a big pickup-truck may be able to tow 5 tons, but it can't hold it in its cargo bed).

    Now, you seriously expect me to beleive the US guards missed 75+ such trucks or 550 such pickups in 3 weeks? ~3 large truckloads or 20+ pickups a day? The quote said looting like the LA riots - that's individuals running off with what they can carry. Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2004
  13. Nov 5, 2004 #12

    plover

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Yes, the idea that the IAEA sealed cache might have been removed before U.S. troops arrived is hogwash, but that was proven last week sometime when they found the footage from one of the embedded reporters showing the IAEA seal being broken, and the containers inside the storage building. U.S. weapons inspector David Kay identified the seal and the explosives. Transcript here (a little under half way down the page).

    The new information in the above article is mostly just eyewitness evidence from soldiers on the ground about how little effort was put into securing the al-Qaqaa site. There are more details in the original L.A. Times story (which unlike the link above requires registration).
    From this report it sounds like the fact that any U.S. personnel were at al-Qaqaa is due to the initiative of the soldiers on the ground, not the Pentagon's invasion plan.

    The Times article also has these details from a Marine officer concerning late April 2003:
     
  14. Nov 5, 2004 #13

    plover

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Amazing, now I'm no longer clueless... :biggrin:
    No, the guards knew looting was taking place, they just couldn't prevent it, and their calls for backup fell on deaf ears. They weren't even aware that anything special was in the facility.

    In a universe where the Iraq invasion was planned competently, your objection might fly. But an intelligence officer indicated there was no 24 hour presence and no attempt to secure the site. (See the quotes in the previous post.) The most likely circumstances are that troops knew about some of the looting, could not have known the complete extent of it, and were not afforded a chance to keep much track of it.
    I think the image being invoked here is that looting was pervasive, brazen, and hectic, not that Iraqis festooned in incendiary bling bling were running off into the desert waving a rocket in each hand.

    I don't even know what purpose you think making an argument like the one above serves. If you want to say something snide, just do it, instead hiding of it in an image that just looks like a failure of the imagination. As it stands, you just give the appearance that Rumsfeld's reputation as a military planner is more important to you than the lives of U.S. troops. I fail to see how preventing the deaths of U.S. soldiers is a partisan issue. I fail to see how adopting a risky military strategy, and then disdaining to build in failsafes is anything but monumental incompetence.

    If you think you can accomplish something with 130,000 troops, but your advisers insist that 300,000 are necessary, you should put at least 170,000 or so in position and get another 100,000 ready to ship out, so if your experimental plan doesn't work as intended, the people you are responsible for aren't left twisting in the wind. I'm no military strategist, but providing this kind of backup plan just seems like minimal common sense. If you're committed to something, do it right! Standing there and saying 'Look it worked!' because a primary objective was acheived while back in the theater of operations soldiers are still being mown down, insurgents are making off with huge stashes of weaponry, and the lives of the civilians you're supposedly protecting just get more dangerous is simply criminal.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Al-Qaqaa complete chaos
  1. Al Jazeera (Replies: 4)

  2. Al Gore's own facts? (Replies: 43)

  3. Obama on Al Arabia (Replies: 34)

Loading...