U.S. Marines discovered more than ten metric tons of bombs!!

Wow wheres the news??

AR RAMADI, Iraq – U.S. Marines discovered more than ten metric tons of munitions hidden at 72 cache sites 39 km south of Fallujah during the week-long Operation Green Trident.

First Reconnaissance Battalion, Regimental Combat Team 8 began the operation last week near the village of Al Latifiyah to search suspected locations for hidden weapon caches. More than 1,000 artillery and mortar rounds were unearthed along with scores of rocket propelled grenades and hand grenades. Most of the caches were shallowly buried along the banks of the Euphrates River and surrounding area.

The weight of the explosives contained within these munitions is approximately one metric ton (2,200 lbs). The artillery and mortar rounds are commonly used by insurgents to make improvised explosive devices.

Site Meter


12,014 views 46 replies
Reply #1 Top
This isn't possible. There are no weapons in Iraq. Just ask the clueless liberals. Iraq was not a danger to us. They didn't have weapons that could harm us. At least that is what they said once we went in, before that they were crying that we'd lose needless lives to the WMDs that Saddam was sure to unleash upon us.

Uh, yeah, that's the ticket! Morgan Fairchild even!
Reply #2 Top
Reprehensible Murtha must be pissed that his stash was found before it could kill U.S. Marines.
Reply #3 Top
WMDs? Must have missed that in the article. You are so intelligent to call liberals clueless, because it says right in the article that they found MORTAR ROUNDS. Oh, I forgot, mortar rounds ARE weapons of mass destruction. Good thing we found those WMDs, otherwise the insurgents would launch mortar rounds thousands of miles over the ocean and hit the U.S., or another target on their hit list.

Reprehensible Murtha? Also very interesting, since he served our country, too. Whether or not you agree with his policies(I assume the latter for both of you), how can you call him reprehensible when he did the same thing that troops are doing today?

I am glad this stash was found so that servicemen and women are safer from explosive attacks, but turn the ignorance meters down or my head might just implode.

QED

Jay

Reply #4 Top
More good news for America, and bad news for the loony left.
Reply #5 Top
WMDs? Must have missed that in the article. You are so intelligent to call liberals clueless, because it says right in the article that they found MORTAR ROUNDS. Oh, I forgot, mortar rounds ARE weapons of mass destruction. Good thing we found those WMDs, otherwise the insurgents would launch mortar rounds thousands of miles over the ocean and hit the U.S., or another target on their hit list.


You really are an idiot, no where in the article does it mention WMD and no one in any post said that mortar rounds were WMD. They said the WMD that Saddam supposely had to use against our soldiers. Moron, learn to read.
Reply #6 Top
You really are an idiot, no where in the article does it mention WMD and no one in any post said that mortar rounds were WMD. They said the WMD that Saddam supposely had to use against our soldiers. Moron, learn to read.


.....

.....

Wow...

...just wow.

Talk about irony.

QED

Jay
Reply #7 Top

Wow...

...just wow.

Talk about irony.

Just a suggestion Jay, learn to read in context.

Reply #8 Top
If we had controlled the several hundred ammo dumps we knew about, we would have prevented MOST of the dead and injured Americans. No one said there were no weapons just not nuclear etc that Bush claimed!
Reply #9 Top
Hey Col!! Good to see you here!! Hey show me where Bush was the only one who claimed the WMD were there. Or do need to point out all the others that agreed with him as far back as 1998!?!?! Or do you want to discuss it was not just Bush who looked at all the intel and made decisions based on the bad intel?? Nice try, Take the word Bush out of every other sentence and people may actually think your not that biased by hatred.
Reply #10 Top
If we had controlled the several hundred ammo dumps we knew about, we would have prevented MOST of the dead and injured Americans. No one said there were no weapons just not nuclear etc that Bush claimed!


But then you wouldn't have dead Americans to celebrate over.
Reply #11 Top
Just a suggestion Jay, learn to read in context.


Alright, what context are we talking about? In general? In response to the first reply? Second Reply?
Maybe you did not understand my first reply, so here is a summary. Some people would call an exhausted .22 round fired by a terrorist to be a Weapon of mass destruction. In this post I used an insane amount of sarcasm, which I thought everyone could detect easily. Apparently DJ does not understand the concept of sarcasm, or he was using sarcasm to mimick my own, which is the most logical because I think my intent was pretty obvious. So, I posted again in utter disbelief. Where should I read in context?
Reply #12 Top
wow hanoijohn, mirthlessmurtha and cluelessgene must be pissed no americans were killed through the use of the waepons, and just as a side note metric tonnage is a WMD.
Reply #13 Top
and just as a side note metric tonnage is a WMD.


Hmmm, never knew that. According to who?
Reply #14 Top
#13 by TARSIER
Wednesday, January 04, 2006


and just as a side note metric tonnage is a WMD.


Hmmm, never knew that. According to who?


wmd= weapons of MASS destruction ok? explode metric tonnage and there will be mass destruction, we clear yet?
Reply #15 Top
No, we are not. The very reliable definition of WMDs is a weapon that uses chemical, biological, or nuclear agents against civilians and military alike (taken from wordnet.princeton.edu.) An example of this would be a nuclear missile, smallpox or anthrax bomb, etc. Not RPG grenade launchers.
Reply #16 Top
Not RPG grenade launchers.
---Tarsier

Either of which, actually, with a little ingenuity, could easily be tainted with any of those items mentioned.


Thanks for posting this, Shadow. Another victory for our side.....ignored as usual by the MSM, and belittled by the doomcriers on JU.

If we had controlled the several hundred ammo dumps we knew about, we would have prevented MOST of the dead and injured Americans. No one said there were no weapons just not nuclear etc that Bush claimed!
---Col. Green

Col., Col., Col....way to cast a dim(witted) shadow on what should be a happy occasion. Way to go, guy.
Now, who's to say that the "ammo dumps we knew about", were where these particular weapons came from, originally? There are lots of guns in the world, Col., and lots of ammo to fill them.
Also, there are lots of Arab sheiks giving lots of cash to lots of poor bearded sots who use it to buy some of those guns and ammo for use in Iraq and in blowing themselves up in the hope of killing innocent Iraqis and Amercian troops.

You one-eyed perspective makes me sick, Col.
Reply #17 Top
ShadowWar

Bush had Intel that clearly said Saddam did not have the WMD. Bush ignored that intelligence because it did not support what he wanted to do which was remove Saddam.
Reply #18 Top
At the risk of having to side with TARIER here, WMD is just another name for Nuclear, Biological & Chemical weapons. That is one of the problems when people start talking in political buzzwords, they become bogged down in the quagmire of interpretation.


Colon Bin Gangrene:

Is it so hard for you to just congratulate our troops for this little victory? Apparently, acknowledging any job well done is beyond your pathetic Bash Bush myopia.
Reply #19 Top
At the risk of having to side with TARIER here, WMD is just another name for Nuclear, Biological & Chemical weapons. That is one of the problems when people start talking in political buzzwords, they become bogged down in the quagmire of interpretation.

LOL, im not the tarsier, a furry little animal from Bornia, im the mispelling of a small dog. Great.

I would you taint an RPG to become a WMD? I seek to be enlightened (truthfully, I do).
Reply #20 Top
I would you taint an RPG to become a WMD? I seek to be enlightened (truthfully, I do).


I know of only one meaning for the word "taint" and it has nothing to do with RPGs or WMD... ;~D

But if someone loaded a Rocket Propelled Grenade with Nuclear, Chemical or Biological armament, then yes, it would be WMD, however, if it was a standard C4 loaded round, then no, (no matter how massive the destruction) it wouldn't be WMD.
Reply #21 Top
The other question I have is, if all the "experts" had no idea about this weapons cache, how can they say so confidently that there are no WMDs in Iraq?

This cache didn't contain any WMD, but how many more caches are still left undiscovered? How can those "experts" say that none of them contain any Nuclear, Biological or Chemical payload?
Reply #22 Top
This cache didn't contain any WMD, but how many more caches are still left undiscovered? How can those "experts" say that none of them contain any Nuclear, Biological or Chemical payload


Care to answer this one col clueless? And no "matter" what "your" experts say....there is "plenty" of proof around showing that not all of Saddam's WMD's were accounted for! They may not have found any WMD's however, that in itself is NOT proof that they do not exist!
Reply #23 Top
Weapons of mass destruction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Weapons of
mass destruction
By Type
Biological weapons
Chemical weapons
Nuclear weapons
Radiological weapons
By country
Brazil Canada
China (PRC) France
Germany India
Iran Iraq
Israel Japan
Netherlands North Korea
Pakistan Poland
Russia South Africa
Taiwan (ROC) United Kingdom
United States


Nuclear weaponry
Nuclear countries
Nuclear proliferation
Nuclear strategy
Nuclear terrorism
Nuclear warfare
Nuclear weapon history
Nuclear weapon design
Nuclear explosion
Nuclear testing
See also
Dirty bomb
Biodressing
Radiological warfare
edit
Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) generally include nuclear, biological, chemical and, increasingly, radiological weapons. The term first arose in 1937 in reference to the mass destruction of Guernica, Spain, by aerial bombardment. Following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and progressing through the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons. The terms ABC, NBC, and CBRN have been used synonymously with WMD, although nuclear weapons have the greatest capacity to cause mass destruction. The phrase entered popular usage in relation to the U.S.-led multinational forces' 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Reply #24 Top
Terp:
This isn't possible. There are no weapons in Iraq. Just ask the clueless liberals. Iraq was not a danger to us. They didn't have weapons that could harm us. At least that is what they said once we went in, before that they were crying that we'd lose needless lives to the WMDs that Saddam was sure to unleash upon us.


Tarsier:
WMDs? Must have missed that in the article. You are so intelligent to call liberals clueless, because it says right in the article that they found MORTAR ROUNDS. Oh, I forgot, mortar rounds ARE weapons of mass destruction. Good thing we found those WMDs, otherwise the insurgents would launch mortar rounds thousands of miles over the ocean and hit the U.S., or another target on their hit list.


DJBandit (quoting Tarsier in his comment):
You really are an idiot, no where in the article does it mention WMD and no one in any post said that mortar rounds were WMD. They said the WMD that Saddam supposely had to use against our soldiers.


Okay, okay, boys... while WMDs are bad and, like conventional munitions, can kill many people, they are not the same thing. The article (anybody remember the article?) said that a huge weapons stash was found. Mortar rounds and bullets and stuff. Nothing about those rounds being NBC. While a WMD can, by definition, be classified as anything that could hypothetically kill more than one person at a time (mass being more than one, apparently), "Weapons of Mass Destruction" encompass only nuclear, biological, and chemical agents that could be used against large quantities of people.

Yes, I saw through the multiple levels of sarcasm on this one, and I also saw where a simple misunderstanding had ballooned out of control. Let's not try to redefine WMD simply to justify a misunderstanding.
Reply #25 Top
Our military have done a fine job. It is Bush that did not send the number of troops needed and sent them without the needed equipment.