How do you lose 190 000 GUNS!!!?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6932710.stm

The US are bringing this conflict on themselves, they have actually given their enemies guns!!!
To me, that seems ever such a little bit silly.

What do you people think of this?

Answer 1

Well I was over there and when you give the Iraqi Police and other agencies that are issued new guns, they turn around and sell them to others that have the money to buy them. there are a lot of factors that come into play here, and again the media didnt tell the whole story. Ambushes on trucks carrying that cargo, Iraqi government giving or selling the guns to others, numerous other factors that I am not going to list on here that come into play. Again this media story only covered half of whats really going on. QUIT putting all your faith into the press. they only tell you what they want you to hear. If they had told the whole story you would have a different outlook on the situation. Yes the enemy may have procurred some of those weapons, but its not like the troops just walked up and said here take 190000 guns from us and then shoot us with them.

Answer 2

The more guns there are the more money the defense industry makes. The more money the defense industry makes, the more money the government makes, and the more JOBS are created. Employment rates are incredibly important for popularity in a democracy - a collossal defense industry and army can create enough jobs for most people to work.

It worked for Hitler after all.

Now of course, there will come a point where every soldier in the army has the most incredibly high-tech equipment and weapons, so they don't need anything new, and everyone the US sells arms to has either run out of money or is in a similar situation. How are you going to justify the massive defense budget? By 'losing' a massive shipment that has to be made all over again.

Of course, better armed insurgents are also a reason to stay in Iraq longer so the US can correct the "mistake" of letting such a large amount of weapons fall off the back of a lorry, meaning even MORE money for the defense industry, Haliburton and all the Bush cronies.

This is what Eisenhower warned us of in 1961. This is the massive military-industrial complex. This is the abuse of power.

And wasn't it George Washington who warned against a standing army?

Answer 3

I think it was poor reporting to put this out in the first place. It's argumentative on its face, and it is silly, but I suspect my idea of silliness might be different from yours. The US allowed various Iraqis to have Iraqi guns, and now they've lost track of them. Well, who would have expected otherwise, and what difference?
Guns are never an issue. They're simple mechanical devices, and those who want one will always have one. The idea of disarming a large group of people is the silly thing. It's hardly more likely to be effective than outlawing rocks. And you'll notice they aren't that much of a problem. The casualties in Iraq are almost all coming not from guns but from vehicles. Perhaps we should get rid of all the cars and trucks.

Answer 4

If you read the article more closely, you will see they didn't lose 190,000 weapons.

The pentagon just doesn't have the paper work, to tell what serial numbers of what weapons, are issued to specific Iraqi units.

Thats what the pentagon means when they cannot account for the weapons.

It's not that the weapons are all missing and gone.

Even though, some of them probaly are missing.

Answer 5

The USA have been giving enemies weapons and military training for years! Only have to look at Bin Laden (who the USA supported in the Afghan/Russian war in the 1980's) and Saddam (where the USA supported during the Iraq/Iran war)for that!

Answer 6

If you had actually read the article - the problem is that the paperwork was not properly completed.

This does not mean that the wepons are missing.

Answer 7

Selling guns and ammo to the enemy is a criminal offence but it happens - okay!

Answer 8

It's not theft or loss, it's a "Realignment of Assets." ;)

Seriously, though, I don't know what to think. I imagine that they're sitting in some unit's connex's and they won't realize they have them 'til they go to redeploy, based on my Army experiences.

Answer 9

Sounds like what they did in Vietnam. Oh how will this unbelievable mess turn out? Won't it be great not to have a chimp anymore - but the real question is this - if we have no more chimp THEN WHAT DO WE HAVE?

Answer 10

I think they have only lost 57,000 (30%) so it's not really that much of a problem!