US cannot account for 190,000 guns in Iraq: report

US cannot account for 190,000 guns in Iraq: report

news.yahoo.com

BAGHDAD (AFP) - The US government cannot account for 190,000 weapons issued to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to an investigation carried out by the Government Accountability Office.

According to the July 31 report, the military "cannot fully account for about 110,000 AK-47 assault rifles, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 items of body armour and 115,000 helmets reported as issued to Iraqi forces."

(visit the link for the full news article)

This furthers my belief that we are trying to fuel violence there, perpetuate the war for the purposes of profit.

And BTW, what the heck are we doing passing out AK-47s ?

If the report said like, 50,000 guns or something that's one thing - but TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND !? That's A LOT of freaking guns.

To say this war has been "mismanaged" is the understatement of the decade.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 2-8-2007 by discomfit]

I just posted this and so bumping yours up and will delete mine.

My news source said it was 1 hour old. Farout!?

Is this stupidity? or is this to be expected in a war?


[edit on 6-8-2007 by Thurisaz]

Ok, here's my question, well, actually I know the answer, but still..

Why exactly do these guns not have embedded tracking devices like GPS systems,
I mean if they're cheap enough to incorporate into cell phones, I can't imagine it
would cost to terribly much (especially considering we've spent nearly one trillion on
the war so far) to issue all military weapons with GPS chips.

I am very surprised by this though, I mean in 3-4 years time in that environment,
and considering who's using them I can understand a few thousand going mission, but 190,000!?!


I wonder how much money went down the drain with this.

Before you guys go off the deep end. Most of the equipment/weapons that are unaccounted for were most likely weapons that were already in Iraq to begin with. Why hand out brand new out of the box Colts when you can just hand the army back their own AKs? Also, a AK in some places of the world could only cost you about 30 dollars as apposed the $1500+ for a Colt so it would only make sense to give them AKs. The body armor and helmets are most likely to be from the US, maybe some of the pistols were US issued.

This doesnt metion anything about ammunition, grenades, explosive charges (like for blowing up IEDs), vehicles, and other equipment like medical supplies.


If I was a Iraqi, Id be stockpiling everything I could get my hands on. Itd be a excellent way to fund passage out of the country after the US leaves and all hell breaks loose, maybe a good way to win favor with local warlords so they dont kill you and your family.

Originally posted by Pfeil
Before you guys go off the deep end. Most of the equipment/weapons that are unaccounted for were most likely weapons that were already in Iraq to begin with.

most of the x were most likely...

too many many mosts! = vague

any proof?? Dare I ask?

or have you formed and shared a logical opinion?

Now this is also interesting:

GAO Estimates 30% of Arms Are Unaccounted For

The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new government report, raising fears that some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.

The author of the report from the Government Accountability Office says U.S. military officials do not know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004 through early this year as part of an effort to train and equip the troops. The highest previous estimate of unaccounted-for weapons was 14,000, in a report issued last year by the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

Where are these 30%?

Originally posted by iori_komei
Why exactly do these guns not have embedded tracking devices like GPS systems?

Would you, Honorable Iori, carry into combat a gun that continually broadcast your position to anyone who might happen to be listening?

[edit on 15-8-2007 by Astyanax]

From HERE

Originally posted by C0bzz
They got them when the United States were friendly with Iran.

The US and Britain overthrow the DEMOCRATICALLY elected Iranian prime minister Mossadegh and then installed a man who had to assassinate and torture many for very long to hold on to that power. The United States government were certainly friendly with this man but never with Iran or it's people so they had a good idea of what could follow.

Irans political party changed and Iran quickly turned into enemies.

The political party were basically killed off by foreign agents under the control of the CIA and others.

So technically, the USA did not provide a rogue nation with arms. They provided an ally with arms.

Technically they provided a dictator who had little support in Iran with arms

Stellar

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by iori_komei
Why exactly do these guns not have embedded tracking devices like GPS systems?

Would you, Honorable Iori, carry into combat a gun that continually broadcast your position to anyone who might happen to be listening?

[edit on 15-8-2007 by Astyanax]

If it was an encoded frequency or I was sure that the likelihood of the enemy combatants
not being technologically sophisticated to be able to use it as a tracking system,
than yes, I would.

Originally posted by Murcielago
First off, Bush is not stupid, he's actually pretty smart, the reason that some people think he's stupid is A). Because they dont like policies and so they just call him names.

I don't think he is exceedingly smart but devious is good enough and those who control him certainly make up for whatever he might lack between the ears and the drastic changes they have implemented in the US speaks volumes about that.

B). press conferences....he's just not that good at big public press conferences, if you watch smaller ones he's better, or when he's talking one on one with a reporter.

His not good at speaking to people or chewing his food and i have heard the rumours that he is a fact a robot of some sort and i can see where people get that idea.

and no, "Dubya" isn't arming our enemies, not in Iraq, or anywhere else.

Sure he is? Why would you send the Iraqi soldiers that you just 'defeated' ( actually the vast majority never stood to fight) home with their guns as 'payment'? It can be argued that there was no way to ever get those weapons back but it's also established that tens of thousands would have been handed in return for salaries they had not been receiving. Fact is nothing was done and these people eventually sold their rifles to feed their families.

The weapons that are used to fight the US in Iraq are not from the US, they are from Iraq & Iran.

I have read that Iraqi's were never forced to surrender their arms en mass ( beside the Kurds) when SH took over but still i believe the arms were mostly in military hands which could and would have been relatively easy to get back in the first weeks if there were a small USD reward. We know that a significant part of the republican guards had in fact received special training and that extensive and widely dispersed cache's of weapons were prepared for the insurgency that would follow the first phase of the war. These guys have been using such arms since the start but obviously it greatly aided the resistance when soldiers retained their weapons.

The US commanders on the ground have on at least two occasions prepared reports that makes it quite clear that Iran is in no state sponsored way involved with the problems in Iraq and that third parties could not and are not supplying the volumes of weapons that could possible keep the resistance going.

Its no secret that Iran is fighting the US by proxy.

There is no good evidence for that and Iran can no more open the border with Iraq than it can launch a invasion of Iraq. If the US wants to seal the border with Iran they could but the fact that they are not really might show that the US are doing it's best to draw Iran into doing something stupid.

and most of the killing that is still going on in that country is by IED's and car bombs....a threat that is hard to stop.

It's not hard to stop when your soldiers are not on foreign streets.

But were making some good gains, hopefully in a couple years Iraq will have a good enough military and police force (and a stable government) that is will be able to survive on, even if the IED's persist.

There is even less evidence for that. For every casualty the US forces takes the Iragi police and 'army' takes four or five and few people wish to serve in such a force.

Iran knows it would be a big blow to them if Iraq turns into a democratic society,

Both Iran and Iraq were mowing towards democracy before the US national security state and others overthrew their elected leaders.

and they are doing everything they can to prevent that from happening.

The current leaders of Iran have nothing to fear from democracy as a truly democratic Iraq will have a Shia leader which will make them more than happy.

Stellar

[edit on 26-8-2007 by StellarX]

Originally posted by Murcielago
Afghanistan was handled pretty bad, so I cant say I'm surprised by that one...

Well the problem with this argument is that the people the US national security state supplied with weapons back in the 80's were shouting "Death to America just after Death to Russia" and they were shooting Russians because that's who was closest; they lacked intercontinental bombers you see. The US security start knew exactly who they were supplying but they did not mind as they needed terrorist to scare the American public with. If they were not going to arm those who hated America's foreign policy who were going to do so?

about those 190,000 guns....like I said, we gave the weapons to who we deemed our allies.....not our enemies.

But one should get start getting suspicious when this process is endlessly repeated...

kilcoo316 - please post some credible links that say that the US and its allies are supplying the terrorist with their weapons.

There is plenty of 'credible' information in senate documents relating to the Iran Contra affair.... The US security state have a long history of supplying the worse , and insignificantly small ,parts of humanity with efficient means of killing the majority.

Iran is full of Islam extremists, they are the ones who are causing mass damage in Iraq.

Not true and once again we have on numerous occasions caught both American and British special forces with ' bombs in the boot' on their way to bombing yet another Shia or Sunni target target. The Us security state benefits by disorder in Iraq and it's no accident that they did not send the half a million men that it would have taken to truly pacify Iraq.

Quit watching CNN and you may learn something, they dumb down all their news,

Sure they do...

if it isn’t left wing...it gets very limited airtime.

CNN and all the rest all have the same conservative corporate owners and it's just silly and ignorant to argue that those owners who allow truly left wing views on the air. What they are doing is providing you with a far ,far right view and a opposing right wing view which they have convinced you is in fact somehow the left wing. Have you ever heard of the organizing Christian left for are in many ways responsible for labour organization and other progressive actions?

Do you also believe that Hezbollah isn't Iran’s Proxy war on Israel?

No i don't and i don't see why anyone who has read much anything could.

yeah.....having goals and benchmarks is a dumb idea.

As for Saddam...your right, he did have control over his country...albeit with an iron fist.

Iran kept control of Iraq with far less violence than the US security state sponsored Shah had to apply in Iran but once again SH was a CIA man and he was doing mostly what they wanted until the 'end' of the cold war gave them the opportunity to move in and destroy all the very progressive things he was doing in Iraq. You can investigate which country had the highest living standards in the ME, the best schooling and food distribution system, the best medical institutions and most doctors just before the US invaded. SH fault was that he had human qualities and while he was quite active at killing those who opposed his dictatorial powers he was developing Iraq along a socialist model at breakneck speed; something the US security state rarely puts up with for long.

their religion is muslim, as far as I'm concerned is a religion the US should ban. Muslim is religion gone bad.

I wish we could ban them all but since i am for freedom and speech and the right to be a complete idiot i suppose we will have to put up with Christian/Catholic/Hindu/Muslim and Buddhist fundamentalist crackpots who always seems to get the most money from the CIA and all their foreign counterparts.

and I know leaving will make that country cave in on itself.

Like it did Vietnam or Korea? Stop kidding yourself and read some HISTORY.

we cant leave Iraq until it has a stable government in place.

The US national security state is doing it's absolutely best to ensure the instability that they could use as argument for their continued presence. The US security state have invested far too much money in too many permanent bases to ever leave Iraq without being physically thrown out so this killing will go on for much longer unless the American public takes to the streets and demands that ever American soldier comes home.

True, that its ultimately up to them, but without the US and its allies helping them out, Iraq would be chaos and have no hope of a bright future.

It wont be up to them until the US interests leave and even then Iraq will have a exceedingly hard time to get the democracy it's people wants. There is still the IMF, world bank and many others part US interests that will do their dam nest to make that country fail as badly as they made other socialist experiments fail.

You need to watch more then the alphabet channels. I pay attention to a little of everything, whether thats CNN or Fox or talk radio. You cant come up with your own beliefs if you simply let one side (the left side) spoon feed you all of your news.

that is all, I'm done talking politics on this thread.

I hope you will respond to what i have said as i really think you need to reevaluate the way you think about these events. You will NOT gain the means to critically evaluate world affairs by watching popular media and until you are willing to read the books that gives you information and questions the cop orate reactionary NWO propaganda you are going to be stuck in the reality that they ensured would be so nonsensical that it would make you physically and mentally ill.

Stellar

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Ok people, I'm tired of this whole "US supplied the enemy with the means to destroy us with." That's not the case at all. The US did not supply any weapons to any of its enemies, they supplied weapons to its allies at the time whom have happened to change allegiances by now and kept the weapons. Unlike the US, these militias thought ahead.

The bumbling fumbling giant who just can't seem to get anything 'right'. I know why people want to believe that but isn't it a bit peculiar to ascribe such stupidity to those who are so filthy rich they could not spend their money in ten lifetimes?

The US has made an attempt to get back the stinger missiles from the Afghan insurgency, only they say they need them in case someone like Iran comes knocking on their door.

And the big bumbling foooolish giant believes them...

(Unfortunately those stingers are used mainly against US aircraft and other NATO aircraft)

But they don't mean to because everyone who ever got bombed by the US national security is filled with forgiveness and such stuff.

The harsh reality about it all is that we supplied the means for a rebel force to overcome a government for OUR benefit and 10-20 years down the road it all came back to bite us in the behind as always happens.

Not 'our', THEIR ( the corporate elite who are profiting by capitalism) as the government they overthrew by sponsoring the fanatics were doing it's best to change Afghanistan in the best interest of ALL Afghani's. Afghanistan today is in many ways worse off for the people , but perfectly good for the capitalist, than in the early 80's and that was always the intent.

This is one thing that people do not learn from, don't trust guerrilla insurgents.

But the rebels they normally support are sponsored by the capitalist so they know exactly who they are working with and that they share a mutual interest.

This is a mess, this entire situation is a mess, I don't think anyone saw any of this coming.

Shattered OUT..

Please.... Why do you find so much solace in believing that this is all just 'bad luck'? Didn't you hear of the Eric Shinseki and all the other thousands in high places who have tried to do at least some right things by America instead of following orders and destroying it?

en.wikipedia.org...

The disaster that is Iraq is NO accident and not 'coincidental' and just like the first gulf war this mess is going to cost to result in hundreds of thousands of trained American soldiers that are no longer fit for military service. The last war incapacitated several hundred thousands officers and men but after the last round they were smart and this time they went to the state department to ensure that they could not be taken to the Hague for injecting so American citizens with untested vaccines.

With the type of people who have been running the US for the last few decades external enemies are not required as the internal one's are doing a bang up job.

Stellar

When I was in Iraq AK's were going for at least $400 new. Browning 9's were $1500 new. Most people were getting really loose pieces for a little less.
The contractor’s organizations have repeatedly given contracts to anti-American leaders even if bids had to be gathered up and re-issued from Baghdad. I had a Senator investigate this habit and at least curtail it.
The US leaders wanted this war to escalate. Otherwise the weapons depot in southern Iraq would not have been entrusted to Ukrainians to blow up. They did not get the job done even as a half hearted attempt. So a lot of the improvised explosive devises came from this little area (several miles of weapons Quonset huts covered with dirt). It is located on the side of a military training facility. There were hills of 40mm mortars all around the place with their guts taken out. All manner of weapons and explosives were removed around the clock for sixteen days non stop at the start of this war unimpeded. The US military should have taken out all those depots and done the job right. If our leaders didn’t want a war without end and billions in tax money to line their pockets with.
Why didn’t the US start a labor union if they wanted Iraqi’s trained and organized? To form a government the local Sheiks should have been used with other leaders to form local governments first. Then separate Iraqi by vote into states with some self governing rights representing local people. Not this imperialistic Shiite owned Iranian butt kissing group of thugs that rule from Bagdad with Al Sadr’s permission.
That’s another peeve of mine. Special Ops could not get permission to put Al Sadr in his grave. If a Moslem is buried in Sadr City it insures the follower will go to paradise despite their behavior. Great guy to leave in control to grow into more power. A mongaloid Iranian puppet, great going. We could have poisoned him in 04 but oh no by all means WE must fight honorably and by Swiss rules even against scum bags with no uniform and weapons our tax money paid for. I picked up a pamphlet in a Green Zone Bazaar that was written by Hussein in it he called on the Moslem world to bleed the US economically. They are winning the war so far. No slam is intended to our troops those poor bastards are doing miracles with what they’ve had to work with too bad they don’t have leaders worthy to clean their latrines.