PDA

View Full Version : hundreds of thousands of AK's missing.


Steyr_223
08-06-2007, 11:21 AM
Has anyone seen Iggy?

;)

1) Did Iggy have anything to do with the missing AKs?
2) How come Iraqi's can get free government purchased firearms and body armor but we tax payers can't?
3) I wonder how many of the missing stuff is or will be used against our men and women?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070806/pl_afp/usiraqweapons_070806074404

"The United States has spent about 19.2 billion dollars since the beginning of the war to stand up Iraqi security forces that are supposed to gradually replace US troops in providing security for the country.

This total, according to the GAO, included at least 2.8 billion used to purchase and transport weapons and other military equipment necessary to improve the Iraqi arsenal.

Part of the money was used to purchase and distribute to Iraqis by September of 2005 about 185,000 Soviet-designed AK-47 assault rifles and 170,000 pistols.

But now, the Department of Defense "cannot fully account" for at least 190,000 of these weapons, or more than 50 percent of the total, the report said.

Also missing were 135,000 items of body armor out of a total of 215,000, despite the fact that even some US soldiers lacked this life-saving equipment, particularly in the early stages of the war."

CCWFacts
08-06-2007, 11:32 AM
Our military can supply hundreds of thousands of full-auto AKs to foreigners, with no real background checks, sketchy accounting, and on a short time line, but for US citizens, the most they can do is provide a trickle of WWII-era Garands, that is after months of paperwork and an effective NICS BG check. I'm referring to the DCM, of course, which is the program whereby the military gives our citizens guns for practice.

tacticalcity
08-06-2007, 11:49 AM
I am a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, and have been since the beginning. I could careless about the presence of WMDs. We created a monster in Saddam, and it was our responsibility to get rid of him. The war in Iraq moved the inevitable conflict with Islamic fundamentalism off American soil by giving extremists a place to exercise their extremism in their own backyard and not ours. For that reason alone it was well worth it.

But when I see things like this, it does make me cringe. There are always going to be screw-ups in war, but this one is a little ridiculous. As is the lack of progress with regards to rebuilding Iraq’s physical infrastructure. Last weeks nation wide power outages should not be something that could happen by this stage…it just shows how side tracked we have become.

I would like to have seen a greater emphasis on rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure and less on getting the Iraqis capable of governing themselves. It is much easier to govern a country where running water, electricity, public transportation, education, and medical facilities are abundant and operational than it is to govern a country where such necessities are scarce or non-existent. This is a lesson we learned after World War II. It amazes me how it seems to be overlooked now.

After World War II most Italians missed Mussolini, because under his ruthless regime things ran smoothly, while under the Americans things were a mess for years to come. Iraqis feel much the same way about Saddam. The only way to change that opinion is to get the infrastructure built to a point that exceeds where it was before the war. Do that, and support for the militants will fade. The average person wants things to be convenient. So make life convenient for them and you will win their support. Their are very few true idealists in the world. Most people surrender their idealism for lifes little necessities. We need to focus on providing those necessities.

We are far too distracted by the militants. We are bogged down with fighting them, and not doing enough of the other things that are needed to win this war. Build the infrastructure while you continue to fight, and things will come together sooner rather than later.

tiki
08-06-2007, 12:11 PM
The war in Iraq moved the inevitable conflict with Islamic fundamentalism off American soil by giving extremists a place to exercise their extremism in their own backyard and not ours.

EXACTLY!!
Thank god. I thought I was the only one that thought that.

Clodbuster
08-06-2007, 12:18 PM
Question is: Why are we re-arming Iraq with AKs instead of ARs? Easier to track where the guns are leaking to.


Clod

Has anyone seen Iggy?

;)

1) Did Iggy have anything to do with the missing AKs?
2) How come Iraqi's can get free government purchased firearms and body armor but we tax payers can't?
3) I wonder how many of the missing stuff is or will be used against our men and women?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070806/pl_afp/usiraqweapons_070806074404

"The United States has spent about 19.2 billion dollars since the beginning of the war to stand up Iraqi security forces that are supposed to gradually replace US troops in providing security for the country.

This total, according to the GAO, included at least 2.8 billion used to purchase and transport weapons and other military equipment necessary to improve the Iraqi arsenal.

Part of the money was used to purchase and distribute to Iraqis by September of 2005 about 185,000 Soviet-designed AK-47 assault rifles and 170,000 pistols.

But now, the Department of Defense "cannot fully account" for at least 190,000 of these weapons, or more than 50 percent of the total, the report said.

Also missing were 135,000 items of body armor out of a total of 215,000, despite the fact that even some US soldiers lacked this life-saving equipment, particularly in the early stages of the war."

pnkssbtz
08-06-2007, 12:30 PM
tacticalcity,

Well said.

I too was confused by the focus on erecting a government first instead of infrastructure.

The government that we set up, that could not exist without our presence, finance and support, then issued demands to us, and we followed said government that existed because of our good grace's orders.

This initially led to a lot of problems, because it turned out that many people in this government were corrupt.

Carbide
08-06-2007, 12:31 PM
so many missing ... and i just want 1

:43:

CCWFacts
08-06-2007, 12:40 PM
I too was confused by the focus on erecting a government first instead of infrastructure.

I'm not going to get into this whole discussion, except to say: there's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem here. You can't have a government without a good infrastructure, because people are unstable and miserable if they don't have reliable water and electricity. The reverse is also true: if you have an infrastructure but no government, the infrastructure will not be stable. People will steal it. Insurgents or others who are intent on disruption will attack the infrastructure itself, knowing that that will create the social instability that they want.

These problems are linked and both need to be solved at the same time.

The US should have gone in with massive numbers of troops, and quickly set up order, provided reliable infrastructure, and all that. Democracy and sovereignty should have been secondary to setting up a stable government AND a reliable infrastructure. Instead there weren't enough troops and there was too much of a hands-off approach early on. That let the insurgents establish themselves. Now we are in a muddle.

hoozaru
08-06-2007, 1:14 PM
Our military can supply hundreds of thousands of full-auto AKs to foreigners, with no real background checks, sketchy accounting, and on a short time line, but for US citizens, the most they can do is provide a trickle of WWII-era Garands, that is after months of paperwork and an effective NICS BG check.

No worries.
thanks to iggy and brady MFer, these full auto AKs will probably find their way back to the US, eventually end up in the hands of gangsters criminals who "truely honor" our gun law.

Perhaps we could send 190,000 of MMG, BB kit and 10/30 AK mag to Iraq :D
this way, millions of terrorist thugs will literally laugh to death, and no longer post any threat to us.

Paratus et Vigilans
08-06-2007, 1:16 PM
I've thought about this problem, the lack of stability in Iraq, quite a bit, and have come to the conclusion that the U.S. and UK spent so bloody much time worrying about how it would look to the so-called "Arab Street" for us to be "occupying" Iraq that they jointly decided to keep the number of "boots on the ground" to an absolute minimum. Trouble seems to have been that we have so few boots on the ground that we can't keep the troublemakers from flowing in from Syria and Iran. So, for the sake of appearances, we now have this bleeding scab that we keep picking at, but can't get healed.

I wonder whether we could declare the borders with Syria and Iran a "no-be" zone (remember the "no-fly zones"?) or a kind of modern day free fire zone - - patrol from above with Predators and Warthogs and Apaches and if anything in there moves, breathes or farts, blow it away. Period. Good guy, bad guy, camel, sheep, goat, whatever. Turn those border areas into moonscapes, and see if that doesn't cut down on the insurgency crap. Then, let's occupy the damned place for real, and screw what the Arab Street thinks about it. I am sick to freaking death of hearing the whiny liberals talk about how the world looks down on us now for the war in Iraq. Yeah? What's the rest of the world trying to do to promote world stability? Huh? Wake up and smell the coffee, people! Putin is reassembling the Soviet Union and promoting instability in the world to keep us off his *** while he does it. How long before he's named president for life, huh? On the other hand, a resurgent Russia will be a good counterbalance to an ever more powerful People's Republic of China. Putin's playing cat and mouse with the Iranians, anyway. He's not going to let them get the bomb. Not as close as they are to his unruly Muslim southern territory. And those idiots in Western Europe are funding Putin's power play, buying his natural gas and oil.

Sorry. Rant over. Honestly. Do you ever get the feeling that NOBODY has enough of an overview of the whole world situation and how it plays together to put all of this in perspective??? Everyone out there that thinks Dubya is some kind of moron who doesn't know what he's doing is going to rue the day they vote Hillary into the White House. Dubya knows EXACTLY what he's doing MOST of the time, and at least has the cojones to say "I'm going to do what's right for America and the world and let history be my judge." If we go back to the Clintonian way of doing things, we'll return to governing by polling data. Yeah, that works great, doesn't it.

Okay, Rant really over this time. :eek:

pnkssbtz
08-06-2007, 1:21 PM
I'm not going to get into this whole discussion, except to say: there's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem here. You can't have a government without a good infrastructure, because people are unstable and miserable if they don't have reliable water and electricity. The reverse is also true: if you have an infrastructure but no government, the infrastructure will not be stable. People will steal it. Insurgents or others who are intent on disruption will attack the infrastructure itself, knowing that that will create the social instability that they want.

These problems are linked and both need to be solved at the same time.

The US should have gone in with massive numbers of troops, and quickly set up order, provided reliable infrastructure, and all that. Democracy and sovereignty should have been secondary to setting up a stable government AND a reliable infrastructure. Instead there weren't enough troops and there was too much of a hands-off approach early on. That let the insurgents establish themselves. Now we are in a muddle.

I agree with you.


I was just saying that the initial government set up was corrupt (elements may still be) on a level that even our congress critters are not. We should of, with our troops, held, controlled and developed the infrastructure, with US troops administrating, UNTIL the infrastructure was set up and then focused on erecting a corrupt government.

There is some precedent in this, such as Sherman and the Philippines.

CCWFacts
08-06-2007, 1:34 PM
I've thought about this problem, the lack of stability in Iraq, quite a bit, and have come to the conclusion that the U.S. and UK spent so bloody much time worrying about how it would look to the so-called "Arab Street" for us to be "occupying" Iraq that they jointly decided to keep the number of "boots on the ground" to an absolute minimum.

That is exactly what happened and it was a big mistake. People like to feel like someone is in control. The US came in, overthrew the guy who was in control, and then made it clear "hey, we're not occupiers! We're not in control of your country!" Big big mistake. They should have done exactly the opposite, never mind what the "Arab street" thinks.

There's also a leadership vacuum over there. It seems like Iraq's current leadership lacks authority, charisma, perception of fairness, etc. That's also fatal. It's one thing to overthrow a leader (one who had lots of authority and some charisma and some degree of fairness). It's quite a different thing to find a leadership cadre that can then fill that vacuum.

oaklander
08-06-2007, 2:20 PM
Question is: Why are we re-arming Iraq with AKs instead of ARs? Easier to track where the guns are leaking to.


Clod

Probably because they are less expensive, and don't require re-training.

carsonwales
08-06-2007, 3:27 PM
The solution here is obvious.

They need to institute a registration process whereby all of these AK's can be registered.

Anyone not registering by the dead line will then be in felony violation.

Just pass some gun/arms control laws and all will be rosy and well in Iraq.

To get rid of the grenade launchers they just need to pass a law against owning them...

I am brilliant!....I have solved the violence/conflict in the middle east....

CW

Socal858
08-06-2007, 5:28 PM
The solution here is obvious.

They need to institute a registration process whereby all of these AK's can be registered.

Anyone not registering by the dead line will then be in felony violation.

Just pass some gun/arms control laws and all will be rosy and well in Iraq.

To get rid of the grenade launchers they just need to pass a law against owning them...

I am brilliant!....I have solved the violence/conflict in the middle east....

CW


dont forget 922r;)

Clodbuster
08-07-2007, 11:30 AM
You forgot the ban on nunchucks, shurikens and SAPs. How will Iraq ever have law and order with insurgent Ninjas having free reign around Bagdad.



Clod


The solution here is obvious.

They need to institute a registration process whereby all of these AK's can be registered.

Anyone not registering by the dead line will then be in felony violation.

Just pass some gun/arms control laws and all will be rosy and well in Iraq.

To get rid of the grenade launchers they just need to pass a law against owning them...

I am brilliant!....I have solved the violence/conflict in the middle east....

CW

Clodbuster
08-07-2007, 11:42 AM
It's been my impression that the new Iraq army took so long to bring together was that they had to be trained...not re-trained. So it shouldn't be a question of which rifle the new army should be standardized with.

ARs are more expensive, but there are plenty of Vietnam era M16s in US arsenals that could be rid of. Plus, they'll have to buy parts from the US based Belgium manufacturer to fix them, which helps pay back the cost of the war...sort of.

At least when the rifles fall into insurgent hands, they won't find it as easy to re-supply with ammo, and the incompatiblily with predominate middle eastern weapons will make using them a logistics nightmare in combat.


Clod

Probably because they are less expensive, and don't require re-training.

JALLEN
08-07-2007, 12:04 PM
so many missing ... and i just want 1

:43:

No problem. I've heard that you can buy a new AK in any town in Pakistan or Afghanistan if you are willing to pay as much as $15. No stupid 10 day wait either. Buy as many as you want and you don't have to be a resident or go through an FFL, either. Unsavory record pocked with blemishes? Not a problem! Just don't ask about 10 round magazines. The muj can only stand so much humor in their miserable lives.

CCWFacts
08-07-2007, 1:00 PM
You forgot the ban on nunchucks, shurikens and SAPs.

And you have left off the all-import, dreaded, chaos-inducing Shinobi-Zue.

My idea: we have a bunch of politicians here who are experts at stopping violence by banning guns. We should send Senator Feinstein, Rosie and Michael Moore over there to institute a gun banning / confiscation program.

simonov
08-07-2007, 2:01 PM
I've thought about this problem, the lack of stability in Iraq, quite a bit,

Not enough, apparently.

You are right that everything is linked. The 1979 revolution in Iran was directly linked to the CIA-backed coup in 1953. The WTC attack was directly linked to the unnecessary Iraq adventure of 1991. And so on.

God only knows what horrors will result from the current (completely unnecessary) debacle down the road, but history suggests they will not be pretty.

Everyone out there that thinks Dubya is some kind of moron who doesn't know what he's doing

Everything Dubya has ever touched in his entire adult life has turned to ****. Why or how anyone would ever have thought that, for the first time in his life, this war of his was going to be anything but another pointless debacle has always been a mystery to me.

Dubya is an incompetent moron. Just look at his resume, it's all there. And his big war has gone completely to hell, just as predicted by everyone except the neocon pundits of the Beltway and talk radio. But repeat failure is meaningless to so much of America. Those neocon pundits are a good example: for five years their every utterance has proven to be horribly wrong, and yet they continue to be published and broadcast, and tards everywhere continue to cite them as authorities.

America reaps what it sows.

Edit: with regard to rifles getting into the hands of insurgents, a great big DUH! for America! The Viet Cong (as opposed to the NVA) were largely armed with American weapons, especially towards the end of the sixties as Washington escalated the amounts of small arms it shipped into Vietnam. People like John Paul Vann pleaded to restrict the shipment of arms into Vietnam since so much of it was ending up in Viet Cong hands (giving arms to Saigon, the most corrupt government on the planet outside Africa, and then seeing them end up in the hands of the insurgents? Whoa, who knew?). Of course, with that example under our belt, our War Leader, possessing as he does the brain of a turnip (I am being generous), oversees a conflict in which hundreds of thousands of small arms are dumped into an insurgency with no controls at all. Shrewd, very shrewd. And about what we should have expected from an Administration that doesn't read books (except, of course, My Pet Goat).

How can any of you be the least bit surprised by any of this? Pull yourselves away from the O'Reilly Factor and read a book or a newspaper sometime. It's all there!

JesseXXX
08-07-2007, 2:45 PM
We're paying for it and we're screwed....

Paratus et Vigilans
08-07-2007, 6:05 PM
Originally Posted by Paratus et Vigilans

I've thought about this problem, the lack of stability in Iraq, quite a bit,



Not enough, apparently.

Well . . . so much for polite debate, eh?

It's easy to call Bush a "moron" and to claim that Iraq is "his war" when you ingore the fact that "his war" had strong bi-partisan support in Congress (yeah, I know, Bush lied, etc., etc., etc.) and conveniently forget that it sprung from Saddam Hussein's game playing over WMD's.

What would your solution have been? Leave Saddam alone, while he made a mockery of the "oil for food" program and tossed weapons inspectors out of the country and basically did what despotic tyrants generally do? What's the end game there? Toothless UN sanctions? What?

Clearly you are one of those who espouse the belief that America gets attacked because it's not nice enough, or tolerant enough, or is too adventurous. We got 9/11 as a present for booting the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, is that it? Because our boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia soiled the holy ground of the birth of Islam? Excuse me, but what part of Jihad do you not get? It's not about what we do, it's about who we are, or rather, who we are not. Unless you're up for a forcible conversion to Islam (which, personally, I am not) there's not a thing to do to placate the murderous bastards we're fighting over there, except, maybe, kill every last one of them, and all their wives and children and parents and grandparents and so on. They are TRUE BELIEVERS and we are INFIDELS. They've got a free pass and an express ticket to paradise for offing us. How do you trump that card??

The "moron" in the White House has reduced unemployment to essentially nil, has promoted economic policies that has the stock market, and everyone's 401K plans and mutual funds, booming, has gotten onto the U.S Supreme Court some justices that are willing to shut down federal judicial activism at the trial and circuit court levels and restore some balance to that branch of the federal government, and has managed to do it with the drum beat of the Dems and their pundits chanting the mantra that life is bad and Bush is dumb.

Well, guess what . . . life is GOOD and Bush is NOT A MORON and while there have been serious mistakes made in the management of post-Saddam Iraq, there is still time and the ability to get that mess straightened out.

So . . . you're so much smarter than Dubya . . . what do YOU do as leader of the free world? Hmmmm? Let's hear it. It's easy to be critical. Let's hear some cohesive agenda for moving forward in a positive manner?

And make it simple and easy to understand, 'cause we're morons . . . . :)