If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Lawmakers: You really want these tanks, huh? Army: No, not really. Lawmakers: Come on... you know you want 'em. Army: Goddammit we said "No"   (security.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 306
    More: Asinine, Odierno, Yoshiaki Iwasaki, General Dynamics, Drew Griffin, Sierra Nevada  
•       •       •

6455 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Oct 2012 at 8:24 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



306 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-10 02:17:40 AM  
And this is why we can't cut the defense budget. We're at war with our own "Representatives."

I don't know how you keep them idle for three years, but find something. Figure it out. There is no sense buying sh*t just to park it in a motor pool and never use it. We're moving away from large-scale armor engagements, so there is really no need going nuts on armor.

McKeon said he's thinking about the long range view. "... If someone could guarantee us that we'll never need tanks in the future, that would be good. I don't see that guarantee."

More than what we have and can refurbish? Uhhh... I can guarantee you that for a while. Go to Aberdeen Proving Grounds or any of the other storage sites for armor we can just refurbish and put into action. We have the tools. Take the $3,000,000,000 and use it elsewhere. Don't worry... I'm sure the Army will ask for it for something else sooner than you can imagine.
 
2012-10-10 02:20:43 AM  
Tell you what, start selling the oldest ones at auction without the firing parts included. I'll be in the line somewhere to help rid you of the back stock...
 
2012-10-10 02:39:40 AM  

ladyfortuna: Tell you what, start selling the oldest ones at auction without the firing parts included. I'll be in the line somewhere to help rid you of the back stock...


There are ways to get surplus tanks.

Here, for example. I'm sure shipping to the US could be arranged.
 
2012-10-10 02:44:13 AM  

NewportBarGuy: And this is why we can't cut the defense budget. We're at war with our own "Representatives."

I don't know how you keep them idle for three years, but find something. Figure it out. There is no sense buying sh*t just to park it in a motor pool and never use it. We're moving away from large-scale armor engagements, so there is really no need going nuts on armor.

McKeon said he's thinking about the long range view. "... If someone could guarantee us that we'll never need tanks in the future, that would be good. I don't see that guarantee."

More than what we have and can refurbish? Uhhh... I can guarantee you that for a while. Go to Aberdeen Proving Grounds or any of the other storage sites for armor we can just refurbish and put into action. We have the tools. Take the $3,000,000,000 and use it elsewhere. Don't worry... I'm sure the Army will ask for it for something else sooner than you can imagine.


McKeon was also unaware that the tank makers had made a hefty contribution to his campaign. Follow the money people. F*ck the taxpayers, we want kickbacks.
 
2012-10-10 02:51:12 AM  

AbbeySomeone: Follow the money people.


Personally? I think they care more about losing jobs in their district. They can raise $56k other ways, but they can't fight local paper headline of people getting laid off. I understand why they do it, but it's just another reason we need term limits so people don't make stupid decisions like this just to keep their job.
 
2012-10-10 03:18:59 AM  

NewportBarGuy: And this is why we can't cut the defense budget. We're at war with our own "Representatives."


The defense contractors know this. Building one F-22 Raptor involves parts or subcontractors in 46 states. You can't tell me that that's a coincidence. That much bi-partisan pork will protect that hangar queen for decades.
 
2012-10-10 03:28:14 AM  

Sgt Otter: Building one F-22 Raptor involves parts or subcontractors in 46 states. You can't tell me that that's a coincidence.


It's f*cking ridiculous and nary a word of outrage is spoken on the Hill or on the news. We just know that the money flows to "jobs" whether we need them or not for what they produce.

I support stimulus measures in a down economy, but we have to at least be reasonable. If we pump that same amount of money into infrastructure, we can probably keep most of these people employed and not wind up with things we don't need. If we need to train them into a transitional field, then do it. Or give them a lower cost project to replace the MRAP which we'll need for more mobility.

It's a goddamn lazy, childish allocation of funds. We know how much armor we have. We have plenty for the next few wars. I understand long-term planning (What if we have no tank factories! OMG NOOOOOOOO!!!) I think we did pretty well after WWII. We had an Army doing rifle training with brooms before Pearl Harbor. That's how my grandfather lost several of his teeth... Broom to the mouth.

They are too easy ready to write checks for things we don't need rather than do the work involved in finding a better way. I'm sick of it.

The F-22, 46 State solution only proves the point. Make it uncuttable and you'll make these lifers make choices on whether they want to keep their seat, not what is in the best interest of the country security-wise or financially. At least Robert Gates had the balls to fight against that which he did not need. He is sorely missed and Panetta couldn't hold his jock-strap.
 
2012-10-10 03:30:17 AM  
I hate to be on the same side as a Congresscritter, but for reasons that have nothing to do with campaign contributions I have to say that I would rather keep a tank factory on life support with a minimum amount of work with no real need for the tanks, than to shut it down.

We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.

Figure out the minimum production level needed to keep it running and order that number. Keep the skills of the workers current so that we don't have to worry as much about expensive war machines being built solely by inexperienced workers who just happened to be standing in line at the temp agency when the call for workers came in.
 
2012-10-10 03:37:21 AM  

BolloxReader: I hate to be on the same side as a Congresscritter, but for reasons that have nothing to do with campaign contributions I have to say that I would rather keep a tank factory on life support with a minimum amount of work with no real need for the tanks, than to shut it down.

We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.


It would be really great if the army had a rebuttal to that point in the article. The whole thing seems to boil down to gambling on whether or not we will be in a large scale tank war sometime in the next 25 years. I am guessing no. In fact, it sort of seems like the WWI moment of charging a tank with calvary because it is all you know.
 
2012-10-10 05:28:07 AM  

BolloxReader: I hate to be on the same side as a Congresscritter, but for reasons that have nothing to do with campaign contributions I have to say that I would rather keep a tank factory on life support with a minimum amount of work with no real need for the tanks, than to shut it down.

We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.

Figure out the minimum production level needed to keep it running and order that number. Keep the skills of the workers current so that we don't have to worry as much about expensive war machines being built solely by inexperienced workers who just happened to be standing in line at the temp agency when the call for workers came in.


Or maybe it would be more cost-effective to not start pointless farkin' wars.
 
2012-10-10 05:32:33 AM  

BolloxReader: We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.


I have to disagree with you here. Do you ever wonder happened to all those tank and jeep factories after WWII? They went back to making cars, the same thing they were making before WWII.

This is one of the best reasons for keeping manufacturing centers like GM and Chrysler open, and why it was so short-sighted of Romney to say "Let Detroit fail!" - it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to convert an already functioning automobile assembly line, especially one located in a defensively strategic place like the middle of the continent, into war machine production. Trying to convince Japan or Korea to convert their assembly lines into making our tanks for us, however, presents all kinds of logistical difficulties.

Having a strong manufacturing base is essential to our own national security, for precisely the reasons demonstrated in WWII. This does not mean we have to have functioning military production, just the capability for it.
 
2012-10-10 05:37:47 AM  

SnakeLee: It would be really great if the army had a rebuttal to that point in the article. The whole thing seems to boil down to gambling on whether or not we will be in a large scale tank war sometime in the next 25 years. I am guessing no. In fact, it sort of seems like the WWI moment of charging a tank with calvary because it is all you know.


I agree with you. However, because Detroit was saved, we have the same capability of being able to convert those automobile production lines into tank production lines in a matter of months, just like we did in WWII. Although the tanks are now infinitely more complex than those on the 1940's, so is the machinery used in those assembly lines.

This is all about corporate welfare for the military industrial complex. They're saying, "You can't cut us off! People need jobs! Cut food stamps instead! People don't need food!"
 
2012-10-10 05:39:04 AM  

James F. Campbell: Or maybe it would be more cost-effective to not start pointless farkin' wars


blogs.seattleweekly.com
"Thanks, Florida!"
 
2012-10-10 05:51:27 AM  

cptjeff: ladyfortuna: Tell you what, start selling the oldest ones at auction without the firing parts included. I'll be in the line somewhere to help rid you of the back stock...

There are ways to get surplus tanks.

Here, for example. I'm sure shipping to the US could be arranged.


But I want Abrams.
 
2012-10-10 06:02:41 AM  

doglover: But I want Abrams.


Here you go.

Be sure to sign up for their other special offers.
 
2012-10-10 06:18:50 AM  

doglover: But I want Abrams.


Okay, speaking of the Abrams, why did Bush in 2007 approve the sale of 125 M1A1 Abrams tanks to Egypt, a regime that we only three years later supported the overthrow of?

I mean, it was decades between our sale of chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein and our invasion on the pretext that he had the audacity to actually use them.

This is the problem with producing too many weapons - someone sees them sitting around, and before you know it, someone thinks its a good idea to sell them. Then, next thing you know, the purchaser uses them, and so the military has to order a new round of weapons to go kill someone else that is using the weapons we sold them in the first place.

I don't believe for one second that Hosni Mubarak's Egyptian government that had been in place for three decades went from "cool" to "needs to go" in only four years. What happened between 2007, when we sold him 125 Abrams battle tanks, as well as ammunition and training, and 2011 when we supported the uprising against him? If he was that bad, why the hell were we selling him tanks?

If we are producing so many tanks that we are selling them to other countries, then maybe we're producing too many tanks.
 
2012-10-10 07:33:08 AM  

James F. Campbell: Or maybe it would be more cost-effective to not start pointless farkin' wars.


Funny thing about isolationism: We tried that in the first half of the last century, and we still ended up getting dragged into a couple of world wars, and we were unprepared for both. Luckily, we could ramp up production fairly quickly, but since weapons systems have become more complex with a longer lead time, you don't really have that luxury anymore.
 
2012-10-10 07:46:08 AM  

dittybopper: since weapons systems have become more complex with a longer lead time, you don't really have that luxury anymore.


I disagree. Yes, the systems are pretty complex, infinitely more so than they were in the 1940's when we converted our auto factories into tank factories, but so are the factories.

Seriously, quite a bit of the work is just reprogramming the robots for new parts. I'm not saying it could be done overnight, but it could be done in the same few months it took in the 1940's.
 
2012-10-10 07:49:18 AM  

ox45tallboy: I mean, it was decades between our sale of chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein and our invasion on the pretext that he had the audacity to actually use them.


We didn't sell chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. We sold them intelligence during the Iran/Iraq war, and they bought some biological samples that they could weaponize on the open market from American sources, and that's about it.

It was *GERMANY* who sold Iraq the equipment: 52% of Iraq's chemical weapons equipment came from Germany, with much of the rest of the production equipment coming from France (21%) and Austria (16%). The balance came from a number of sources, none of it American. Actual chemicals (like Mustard Gas, and precursors for nerve agents) came from Singapore, Holland, Egypt, India, and Luxembourg. China and Spain provided actual weapons to be filled with chemical weapons (ie., artillery shells, bombs, etc.).

I don't know where this myth came up that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, but it's false. We didn't even significantly arm Iraq: most of their weapons systems are either European in origin, or came from the Soviet Union/Russia.

Their nuclear program was entirely French in origin.

That is why France, Germany, and Russia were dead set against the Iraq war: Saddam Hussein was deep in hock to them for all the weapons he got from them, and hadn't been able to pay them back due to economic sanctions, and if he got toppled, they stood to lose all that money. Don't kid yourself into thinking it was for humanitarian reasons.

That's not to say the justification for the Iraq war was 100% kosher either, just that governmental opposition to it from those countries was motivated not by concerns for the people of Iraq, but the fear that a new government in Iraq wouldn't pay for the stuff the Hussein regime bought largely on credit.
 
2012-10-10 07:52:50 AM  

James F. Campbell: BolloxReader: I hate to be on the same side as a Congresscritter, but for reasons that have nothing to do with campaign contributions I have to say that I would rather keep a tank factory on life support with a minimum amount of work with no real need for the tanks, than to shut it down.

We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.

Figure out the minimum production level needed to keep it running and order that number. Keep the skills of the workers current so that we don't have to worry as much about expensive war machines being built solely by inexperienced workers who just happened to be standing in line at the temp agency when the call for workers came in.

Or maybe it would be more cost-effective to not start pointless farkin' wars.


Also, maybe it is just me, but, any wars we'll get into, probably sooner than later, will have little need for tanks.
 
2012-10-10 08:00:41 AM  

ox45tallboy: dittybopper: since weapons systems have become more complex with a longer lead time, you don't really have that luxury anymore.

I disagree. Yes, the systems are pretty complex, infinitely more so than they were in the 1940's when we converted our auto factories into tank factories, but so are the factories.

Seriously, quite a bit of the work is just reprogramming the robots for new parts. I'm not saying it could be done overnight, but it could be done in the same few months it took in the 1940's.


Not really.

A robot designed to build an SUV isn't going to be able to build a tank. Something designed to handle parts that weigh a couple hundred pounds isn't going to be able to handle parts that weigh thousands, and simply tack-welding parts together (as is done for a lot of auto body parts) ain't gonna cut it for armor plate.

It's more than just reprogramming the robots that make Tahoes and Suburbans.
 
2012-10-10 08:03:32 AM  

dletter: Also, maybe it is just me, but, any wars we'll get into, probably sooner than later, will have little need for tanks.


Don't make the classic mistake of projecting the last war you fought into the future.

Besides which, we used tanks extensively in 1991 and in 2003, because we were fighting conventionally armored opponents.
 
2012-10-10 08:06:41 AM  

dittybopper: I don't know where this myth came up that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons


I don't know... maybe Ted Koppel's 1992 Nightline report? And it's not a myth. The receipts for the rocket assemblies used as delivery mechanisms are on file.

dittybopper: We didn't even significantly arm Iraq: most of their weapons systems are either European in origin, or came from the Soviet Union/Russia.


I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you. While Iran was using mostly American made equipment in the Iran-Iraq war, they didn't buy a large part of it from the US. The ironic thing was that after the war began, the US began covertly supplying Iraq with weapons made elsewhere, so the nations then supplying Iran post-revolution wouldn't get pissed,

And the US did have plenty of above-board direct sales of things like helicopters and dual-use items like rocket assemblies. A sh*t ton of the evidence we had of Iraq's military capabilities in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion came from the fact that we knew exactly what we were looking for.
 
2012-10-10 08:09:59 AM  

dittybopper: Not really.

A robot designed to build an SUV isn't going to be able to build a tank. Something designed to handle parts that weigh a couple hundred pounds isn't going to be able to handle parts that weigh thousands, and simply tack-welding parts together (as is done for a lot of auto body parts) ain't gonna cut it for armor plate.

It's more than just reprogramming the robots that make Tahoes and Suburbans.


But what it isn't is creating a whole new factory from scratch. The assembly lines are in place, complete with tools and equipment and people trained to use them, as well as managers that know how to get the most out of their employees and facilities. Yes, some things would need to be changed. This is why it would take a few months. But it would not necessitate completely building new factories and training new personnel from scratch.
 
2012-10-10 08:11:01 AM  
"Tanks, but no tanks."
 
2012-10-10 08:13:49 AM  
This is what happens when Congressmen wait so long to read "Red Storm Rising"
 
2012-10-10 08:17:18 AM  
And Republicans tell us we can't cut defense spending.

We waste money on F-22s, when the type of air to air combat they were designed for never actually happens - standoff anti-air missions - and they are worse than any existing plane for any other role. We waste money on main battle tanks, when open tank battles are a thing of the past. We waste money on decades old ICBMs that just sit rotting in their silos. We waste money maintaining an active fleet of aircraft carriers larger than the entire rest of the world combined for absolutely no reason. We waste money maintaining bases around the world defending absolutely nothing. We waste money on "research" into new designs that are unlikely to work and are still designed to win the last war.

And yet we can't cut defense spending, the single greatest example of wasteful government spending with no return on investment.
 
2012-10-10 08:20:03 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: This is what happens when Congressmen wait so long to read "Red Storm Rising"


There's actually a book called The Third World War written by General Hackett that isn't all that dissimilar to that book. And Red Storm Rising is a good book. But Red Storm Rising is just as likely to be the next war as 50 year long trench warfare stalemates are going to happen like everyone thought after WW1.
 
2012-10-10 08:20:09 AM  
Hey, you gotta look out for your country club buddies.
 
2012-10-10 08:22:57 AM  

GAT_00: We waste money maintaining an active fleet of aircraft carriers larger than the entire rest of the world combined for absolutely no reason.


Okay, I'm with you on all the others, but the aircraft carriers are just cool as sh*t, not to mention intimidating as f*ck when you've got one parked 30 nautical miles from your coastline.

However, they are ridiculously expensive, and with all the military bases all over the world that we're currently supporting, virtually all of which have airports, we could probably do without them.

But they're still really f*cking cool.
 
2012-10-10 08:26:47 AM  

GAT_00: But Red Storm Rising is just as likely to be the next war as 50 year long trench warfare stalemates are going to happen like everyone thought after WW1.


Well, not everyone. I like this guy's take on it:

content8.flixster.com
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will
be fought with sticks and stones."
 
2012-10-10 08:29:41 AM  

ox45tallboy: GAT_00: We waste money maintaining an active fleet of aircraft carriers larger than the entire rest of the world combined for absolutely no reason.

Okay, I'm with you on all the others, but the aircraft carriers are just cool as sh*t, not to mention intimidating as f*ck when you've got one parked 30 nautical miles from your coastline.

However, they are ridiculously expensive, and with all the military bases all over the world that we're currently supporting, virtually all of which have airports, we could probably do without them.

But they're still really f*cking cool.


Yeah, but the rest of the world combined can't even field 12 fleet carriers, like we do. I think they can if you include those crappy helicopter carriers that aren't real carriers. Fine, keep 3 for the Arabian Sea, and 3 for China. Who the fark are the rest for? And just cutting those 6 carriers from active deployment can save something like $100 billion a year.
 
2012-10-10 08:30:19 AM  

dletter: James F. Campbell: BolloxReader: I hate to be on the same side as a Congresscritter, but for reasons that have nothing to do with campaign contributions I have to say that I would rather keep a tank factory on life support with a minimum amount of work with no real need for the tanks, than to shut it down.

We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.

Figure out the minimum production level needed to keep it running and order that number. Keep the skills of the workers current so that we don't have to worry as much about expensive war machines being built solely by inexperienced workers who just happened to be standing in line at the temp agency when the call for workers came in.

Or maybe it would be more cost-effective to not start pointless farkin' wars.

Also, maybe it is just me, but, any wars we'll get into, probably sooner than later, will have little need for tanks.


This is why we need to invade someone NOW. Haven't these people ever played Civilization? If your army starts costing too much money, you don't just disband units. You throw them at someone else.
I recommend Mexico. Mexico City has a good sized population. We could build a library there, and make all those Mexicans useful.
 
2012-10-10 08:32:07 AM  
1) Defund Planned Parenthood.

2) Fire Big Bird.

3) MOAR TANKS!

4) ???

5) Balanced budget!

/Seriously, where the fark is the Tea Party when wasteful Pentagon boondoggles are at issue?
 
2012-10-10 08:33:08 AM  
And here (warning, PDF) are some numbers from RAND about how much a Nimitz-class carrier costs a year.
 
2012-10-10 08:33:52 AM  
Remember folks when it's wasteful government spending on blowing brown skin people up it's not "pork". It's only pork when you educate and/or feed brown skin people.
 
2012-10-10 08:33:59 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Take the $3,000,000,000 and use it elsewhere.


Nope, he needs it spent there (his state), and on a company that has donated to him.
 
2012-10-10 08:35:29 AM  
www.whitehouse.gov

*cough* TOLD YOU! *cough*
 
2012-10-10 08:37:52 AM  

NewportBarGuy: AbbeySomeone: Follow the money people.

Personally? I think they care more about losing jobs in their district. They can raise $56k other ways, but they can't fight local paper headline of people getting laid off. I understand why they do it, but it's just another reason we need term limits so people don't make stupid decisions like this just to keep their job.


And the businesses that make tanks aren't going to switch to solar panels, and it's not like he can make them. He could adjust the tax code such that new green energy businesses were incentivized, so as military production ramped down, those technical folks could find somewhere in the neighborhood to work. But that would probably still result in short term layoffs and long term instability.

Oddly, the best way for lawmakers to gut that system is to lazily champion the industry and hope someone else cuts their budget, hopefully with another letter after their name. That way they can refocus manufacturing while not taking the political flak for the layoffs. Which will still occur.
 
2012-10-10 08:38:06 AM  
If they're worried about the 16,000 jobs that would be at stake if they stop production of the tanks, wouldn't be far more efficient to just take that 3 billion and give it to those 16,000 people? That's what, like 200,000 per person? That should sustain them while they find other jobs.
 
2012-10-10 08:40:33 AM  
Somehow this will end with the tanks being sold to suburban police departments.
 
2012-10-10 08:40:47 AM  

ox45tallboy: dittybopper: I don't know where this myth came up that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons

I don't know... maybe Ted Koppel's 1992 Nightline report? And it's not a myth. The receipts for the rocket assemblies used as delivery mechanisms are on file.


FYL:
As we've been reporting for more than a year now, the Reagan/Bush administrations permitted - and frequently encouraged - the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.

Chemicals, and weapons. Not "chemical weapons". An important distinction. Yeah, we sent a minor amount of weaponry, and some chemicals, but not chemical weapons. Dual use technology also includes stuff like advanced computers.

The major help we provided to Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war though was training, intelligence (this is perhaps the biggest aid we gave them, satellite and SIGINT support), and we also facilitated the transfer of spare parts for their (mainly) Soviet weapons systems. We didn't make them or sell them, just helped to arrange for their transfer.

Is it surprising that we helped Iraq in the 1980? Hell no. They were fighting Iran, which had held US hostages for 444 days during the Carter Administration, and which considered the United States to be the "Great Satan".

As I also pointed out, they got some materials from the US that can (and in retrospect were) used to at least investigate biological weapons research, under the guise of agricultural research. But they didn't actually *USE* biological weapons at all.

dittybopper: We didn't even significantly arm Iraq: most of their weapons systems are either European in origin, or came from the Soviet Union/Russia.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you.


Really, let's look at the major weapons systems of the pre-2003 Iraqi Army.

US Tanks (M47 Patton): 20
Soviet/Warsaw Pact/PRC tanks (various makes): 9,200

They also had a relatively minor amount of US artillery, US APCs (Vietnam era M113s), and a few US general purpose helicopters. All of their rockets and missiles were of Warsaw Pact/PRC origin, except for some from Germany, France, and Brazil.

Same deal with the Iraqi Air Force:

Iraqi Air Force strength at start of war, losses, flights to Iran and remaining aircraft after war.[11]
Aircraft 1990 destroyed damaged to Iran survived
France Mirage F1EQ 76 23 6 24 23
France Mirage F1K (Kuwaiti) 8 2 2 0 4
USSR MiG-23BN 38 17 0 4 18
USSR Su-20 18 4 2 4 8
USSR Su-22R 10 1 0 0 9
USSR Su-22M2 24 2 6 5 11
USSR Su-22M3 16 7 0 9 0
USSR Su-22M4 28 7 0 15 6
USSR Su-24MK 30 5 0 24 1
USSR SU-25 66 31 8 7 20
USSR MiG-21/China F7 236 65 46 0 115
USSR MiG-23ML 39 14 1 7 17
USSR MiG-23MF 14 2 5 0 7
USSR MiG-23MS 15 2 4 0 9
USSR MiG-25RB 9 3 3 0 3
USSR MiG-25PDS 19 13 1 0 5
USSR MiG-29 37 17 4 4 12
USSR MiG-23UM 21 8 0 1 12
USSR Tu-16 3 3 0 0 0
China Xian H-6 4 4 0 0 0
USSR AN-26 5 0 3 0 2
USSR Il-76 19 3 1 15 0
France dassault Falcon 20 2 0 0 2 0
France dassault Falcon 50 3 0 0 3 0
USA Lockheed Jetstar 6 4 0 1 1
USSR MiG-25U 7 3 2 0 2
USSR Su-22-UM3 25 3 1 0 21
Czechoslovakia L-39 67 0 1 0 66
Brazil Tucano 78 1 6 0 64
Switzerland FFA AS-202 Bravo 34 5 5 0 17
Eloris trainer 12 0 0 0 12
United Kingdom Jet Provost 15 0 0 0 15
BK-117 14 1 6 0 6
France Mirage F1BQ 10 0 0 0 10
USSR MiG-29UB 4 0 0 0 4


The only US aircraft they had prior to the Gulf War was 6 Lockheed JetStars, which are business class jets, not combat aircraft. 

All of their small arms were Soviet designed and of USSR, Warsaw Pact, or PRC in origin.
 
2012-10-10 08:40:55 AM  
dittybopper:
Don't make the classic mistake of projecting the last war you fought into the future.


Yeah, isn't it annoying when people attempt to hilariously shoehorn past events into a projection of the future when they're not at all comparable?


dittybopper: Funny thing about isolationism: We tried that in the first half of the last century, and we still ended up getting dragged into a couple of world wars, and we were unprepared for both.
 
2012-10-10 08:41:34 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: /Seriously, where the fark is the Tea Party when wasteful Pentagon boondoggles are at issue?


Watching Red Dawn for the 97th time.
 
2012-10-10 08:41:34 AM  
Lima, OHIO.

You'd think there was an election going on or something.
 
2012-10-10 08:41:40 AM  
Tanks? Really? How about no.
 
2012-10-10 08:43:01 AM  

liam76: Nope, he needs it spent there (his state), and on a company that has donated to him.


Fine! Spend it on infrastructure!
 
2012-10-10 08:43:49 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Somehow this will end with the tanks being sold to suburban police departments.


That'll be fun..

(BOOM! CRASH!) 'Hey, that's my living room wall!' 'You're under arrest for failure to pay child support!'
 
2012-10-10 08:44:07 AM  

dittybopper: ox45tallboy: I mean, it was decades between our sale of chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein and our invasion on the pretext that he had the audacity to actually use them.

We didn't sell chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. We sold them intelligence during the Iran/Iraq war, and they bought some biological samples that they could weaponize on the open market from American sources, and that's about it.

It was *GERMANY* who sold Iraq the equipment: 52% of Iraq's chemical weapons equipment came from Germany, with much of the rest of the production equipment coming from France (21%) and Austria (16%). The balance came from a number of sources, none of it American. Actual chemicals (like Mustard Gas, and precursors for nerve agents) came from Singapore, Holland, Egypt, India, and Luxembourg. China and Spain provided actual weapons to be filled with chemical weapons (ie., artillery shells, bombs, etc.).

I don't know where this myth came up that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, but it's false. We didn't even significantly arm Iraq: most of their weapons systems are either European in origin, or came from the Soviet Union/Russia.

Their nuclear program was entirely French in origin.

That is why France, Germany, and Russia were dead set against the Iraq war: Saddam Hussein was deep in hock to them for all the weapons he got from them, and hadn't been able to pay them back due to economic sanctions, and if he got toppled, they stood to lose all that money. Don't kid yourself into thinking it was for humanitarian reasons.

That's not to say the justification for the Iraq war was 100% kosher either, just that governmental opposition to it from those countries was motivated not by concerns for the people of Iraq, but the fear that a new government in Iraq wouldn't pay for the stuff the Hussein regime bought largely on credit.


lemme get this straight...

youre advocating the stance that the Arms manufacturers of these countries were able to exert enough pressure on their respective govts over losing arms sales to saddams regimes that they should risk a series diplomatic schism with the US? I call shenanigans.

aint buyin' it.

the rest of the West didnt go with us into iraq because it was a fool's errand, based on BS intel, and their electorates were against it. the ones who went either went in because they couldnt stand the thought of breaking ranks with the US even when their electorates were overwhelmlingly against it (as was the case with the UK), went in in very limited capacity enough to uphold good stand with the US but not really fundamentally contribute and would leave soon (like Italy or Spain), or were hoping to gain washington's favors (like poland ukraine and others).
 
2012-10-10 08:45:30 AM  

dittybopper: dletter: Also, maybe it is just me, but, any wars we'll get into, probably sooner than later, will have little need for tanks.

Don't make the classic mistake of projecting the last war you fought into the future.

Besides which, we used tanks extensively in 1991 and in 2003, because we were fighting conventionally armored opponents.


Well, I wasn't saying that 3 years from now, we'd not need tanks. And, I am not saying that we'd NEVER need tanks in wars going way forward.

But, sounds like we have a LOT of tanks sitting out there, that need little to no repair to be ready to deploy. So, other than because some region (and a region very close to me in Ohio) doesn't want to lose jobs... why do we need to just keep paying for tanks that each probably cost what we spend on PBS each year, which we definitely need to defund, amirite?
 
Displayed 50 of 306 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report