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.

(Washington Post)   What to do with billions of dollars of taxpayer-paid military equipment in Afghanistan? Pentagon to scrap it, shred it, or just leave it there   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 245
    More: Fail, Afghanistan, Afghans, equipment  
•       •       •

10125 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jun 2013 at 11:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-19 08:33:59 PM
WOOT -
wait
I bet the warlords or the taliban would be willing to buy that equipment
 
2013-06-19 08:34:12 PM
We can't just leave it there; some kid might find it.
 
2013-06-19 08:35:00 PM
Good thing we didn't waste that money on infrastructure or giving health care to children.
 
2013-06-19 08:42:17 PM
The destruction of tons of equipment is all but certain to raise sharp questions in Afghanistan and the United States about whether the Pentagon's approach is fiscally responsible

The words "Pentagon" and "fiscally responsible" do not belong in the same sentence.
 
2013-06-19 08:45:08 PM
Hmm... war is expensive?

Interesting.

/The unintended consequences of arbitrary deadlines can be a biatch too.
 
2013-06-19 08:52:29 PM
Early on during Iraq, a lot of liberals were insisting we could withdraw in a matter of a few weeks, going so far as to say to abandon the heavy equipment and ammo dumps.

I didn't think it was a good idea then, and it's not a good idea now.
 
2013-06-19 08:57:58 PM

Ricardo Klement: Early on during Iraq, a lot of liberals were insisting we could withdraw in a matter of a few weeks, going so far as to say to abandon the heavy equipment and ammo dumps.

I didn't think it was a good idea then, and it's not a good idea now.


[citation needed]
 
2013-06-19 09:08:15 PM
FTFAAs of May, Mason said, $25 billion worth of equipment was deployed with Army personnel. After an analysis of needs and costs, it has decided to ship back no more than 76 percent. Transporting that much will cost $2 billion to $3 billion, the Army estimates.

The key is to use the flat rate boxes. Then, you can jam all sorts of heavy crap in there, and it doesn't cost you any more than if you were shipping a box full of feathers. The Army should looking into getting a few of the biggest ones.

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 09:16:47 PM

propasaurus: Ricardo Klement: Early on during Iraq, a lot of liberals were insisting we could withdraw in a matter of a few weeks, going so far as to say to abandon the heavy equipment and ammo dumps.

I didn't think it was a good idea then, and it's not a good idea now.

[citation needed]


You want me to post links from liberal blogs to demonstrate people saying we can just leave that stuff behind?  Really?
 
2013-06-19 09:22:49 PM

Ricardo Klement: propasaurus: Ricardo Klement: Early on during Iraq, a lot of liberals were insisting we could withdraw in a matter of a few weeks, going so far as to say to abandon the heavy equipment and ammo dumps.

I didn't think it was a good idea then, and it's not a good idea now.

[citation needed]

You want me to post links from liberal blogs to demonstrate people saying we can just leave that stuff behind?  Really?


Yes. Do eeeet.
 
2013-06-19 09:25:07 PM
I can see the problem.  I have a commercial zero turn field mower with 1200 hours that I just I picked up for $500.  If anyone in the area actually needed it for what it was designed to do, it's worth at least 4 grand.  But no one in the area needs it, and shipping it anywhere covers the cost spread.  But the Pentagon can't leave military equipment like you can leave a tractor.  So you destroy it.
 
2013-06-19 09:27:43 PM
Put "free stuff" on Craigslist and set it out by the curb. It will be gone by morning.
 
2013-06-19 09:31:11 PM
If you ever saw what the Army spends on logistics, you might truly vomit.

You know they have their own navy, right?

/It's cheaper to leave it there than it is to ship it home. See: Vietnam.
 
2013-06-19 09:38:57 PM
Send it to Syria. ;)
 
2013-06-19 09:40:11 PM

NewportBarGuy: If you ever saw what the Army spends on logistics, you might truly vomit.

You know they have their own navy, right?

/It's cheaper to leave it there than it is to ship it home. See: Vietnam.


Actually, to expand on this...

Once Bush and Franks moved the forces into the Gulf to back up their threats against Saddam, I knew we were going to war no matter what Saddam did. They don't spend the kind of money they did to position forces without actually using them. When he started stealing money from the Afghanistan war supplemental, I was 100% certain that we were getting into that clusterf*ck. It's incredibly illegal, what they did (misappropriation of funds) but... who cares. We had killing to do.

/Not as bitter as I once was.
//Still a little bitter and pissed off at those assholes.
 
2013-06-19 09:43:48 PM

NewportBarGuy: //Still a little bitter and pissed off at those assholes.


There's greater than 200,000 reasons to be mad at those assholes. And 10,000 or so more laying in American soil.
 
2013-06-19 09:46:35 PM
There's less service life left in this stuff to make it worth the cost of shipping it back minus the cost of destruction.  Yeah, it sucks, but it's the responsible course of action.

/loggie
 
2013-06-19 09:56:18 PM

doyner: /loggie


Are you really? I am seriously impressed by the stuff you guys do. I'm in logistics now as a civilian, but it can f*cking suck. Need something there tomorrow? Yeah, that'll be 5 days.
 
2013-06-19 10:02:01 PM

NewportBarGuy: doyner: /loggie

Are you really? I am seriously impressed by the stuff you guys do. I'm in logistics now as a civilian, but it can f*cking suck. Need something there tomorrow? Yeah, that'll be 5 days.


Yup.  Navy Supply Corps--specialized in operational logistics.

At the heart of it it's just math really.
 
2013-06-19 10:07:25 PM

doyner: At the heart of it it's just math really.


I know, but the dollar amounts are so large. People have no concept of what it costs to keep a CBG afloat for a tour. The fuel, the food, the ammo... Those are some very large numbers, my friend.

I love the Navy, but I think we could learn a thing or two from the Spanish Armada. It's like a giant hole in the ocean into which you throw money.

Projection of power is huge, but we are in for a thinning of the Navy unlike anything seen since the end of the Cold War. Air Force and Navy, that is where they are going to look for cuts because the weapons/ships/aircraft programs provide the easiest things to cut. Right or wrong, that is exactly where they will look.
 
2013-06-19 10:18:33 PM
NewportBarGuy:

Projection of power is huge, but we are in for a thinning of the Navy unlike anything seen since the end of the Cold War. Air Force and Navy, that is where they are going to look for cuts because the weapons/ships/aircraft programs provide the easiest things to cut. Right or wrong, that is exactly where they will look.

What they need to do is look at the platforms that give the best bang for the buck (like DDG 51 class and SSN 774) and scrap the bottom feeders (like LCS).  Sure, I'm biased for both platforms, but I also can do basic arithmetic.

Repeat for other services....
 
2013-06-19 10:19:38 PM

NewportBarGuy: doyner: At the heart of it it's just math really.

I know, but the dollar amounts are so large. People have no concept of what it costs to keep a CBG afloat for a tour. The fuel, the food, the ammo... Those are some very large numbers, my friend.

I love the Navy, but I think we could learn a thing or two from the Spanish Armada. It's like a giant hole in the ocean into which you throw money.

Projection of power is huge, but we are in for a thinning of the Navy unlike anything seen since the end of the Cold War. Air Force and Navy, that is where they are going to look for cuts because the weapons/ships/aircraft programs provide the easiest things to cut. Right or wrong, that is exactly where they will look.


This is coming from a guy who's never been in the military, but it seems to me like the Navy and Air Force would be the places to invest for the future of warfare.  Why not just take the CBG somewhere it's needed, launch cruise missiles and bombing runs to knock out the enemy forces bit by bit, then turn it all around and go home when it's done?  For practical purposes why do we need huge land bases and tens of thousands of occupying troops in war zones?  Get rid of the bad guys, or as many of them as can be easily found and hit, and just make sure that there's no military infrastructure left for them to be a problem for a very long time.

If enough are left of the old regime to regroup and come to power again it will take them so long to build their forces back up that we can just send in the missiles, drones, and planes again ten years down the road, and it would still likely be a lot cheaper than protracted engagements on the group.
 
2013-06-19 10:20:16 PM
err, group = ground.
 
2013-06-19 10:36:19 PM

Ricardo Klement: propasaurus: Ricardo Klement: Early on during Iraq, a lot of liberals were insisting we could withdraw in a matter of a few weeks, going so far as to say to abandon the heavy equipment and ammo dumps.

I didn't think it was a good idea then, and it's not a good idea now.

[citation needed]

You want me to post links from liberal blogs to demonstrate people saying we can just leave that stuff behind?  Really?


Go big or go home.
 
2013-06-19 10:36:39 PM

TuteTibiImperes: This is coming from a guy who's never been in the military, but it seems to me like the Navy and Air Force would be the places to invest for the future of warfare.


Doing so would require a few trillion dollars. Where would you rather the money go? Hint: Most of it will be lost in the design phase. Sure, it creates jobs, but at what cost. The ROI on Defense Spending is not that great.

doyner: What they need to do is look at the platforms that give the best bang for the buck (like DDG 51 class and SSN 774) and scrap the bottom feeders (like LCS). Sure, I'm biased for both platforms, but I also can do basic arithmetic.


I wish more people thought like you do. I drink with people from the Naval War College. The LCS is their entire hope and dream. I honestly have no idea what they'll do when they are told it's too expensive an ineffective.
 
2013-06-19 10:52:21 PM

NewportBarGuy: I wish more people thought like you do. I drink with people from the Naval War College. The LCS is their entire hope and dream. I honestly have no idea what they'll do when they are told it's too expensive an ineffective.


The LCS is born of the same mindset that brought the "Sea Basing" concept.  Jesus H Christ...

Don't get me wrong--I'm for innovation.  I'm NOT for conceptual overreach.  Two separate designs for a single class? Are you f''ing kidding me?!?!?
 
2013-06-19 10:59:39 PM

NewportBarGuy: TuteTibiImperes: This is coming from a guy who's never been in the military, but it seems to me like the Navy and Air Force would be the places to invest for the future of warfare.

Doing so would require a few trillion dollars. Where would you rather the money go? Hint: Most of it will be lost in the design phase. Sure, it creates jobs, but at what cost. The ROI on Defense Spending is not that great.


How do most defense projects get funded?  When the military says that it wants a next-generation version of the A-10 for example, and private companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin start working on it, do government funds directly finance that development, or does that money come from the coffers of the companies competing for the bid?

With the free market and defense both being GOP sacred cows, wouldn't the best solution be for the military to publish a list of requirements, have multiple private firms develop prototypes and proposals on their own dime, and then contract with whoever has the proposal with the best price/performance ratio?
 
2013-06-19 11:02:51 PM
But it's the welfare mothers who are bleeding us dry!
 
2013-06-19 11:02:51 PM
Scrap it. You can repurpose that material for other things. It's good for the environment, and cost effective.
 
2013-06-19 11:06:37 PM
Don't worry, the people they paid to make the stuff are already getting paid to make new stuff.
 
2013-06-19 11:07:23 PM
Consolidate everything to make a killer paintball battlefield (you know, for the kids).
 
2013-06-19 11:08:16 PM

Lsherm: I can see the problem.  I have a commercial zero turn field mower with 1200 hours that I just I picked up for $500.  If anyone in the area actually needed it for what it was designed to do, it's worth at least 4 grand.  But no one in the area needs it, and shipping it anywhere covers the cost spread.  But the Pentagon can't leave military equipment like you can leave a tractor.  So you destroy it.


I'll give you the $500 back. Where are you?
 
2013-06-19 11:12:21 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: Hmm... war is expensive?


What war? It's an occupation. They didn't even call Korea or Vietnam "wars" but these occupations are wars, how does that work?
 
2013-06-19 11:12:41 PM

Ricardo Klement: propasaurus: Ricardo Klement: Early on during Iraq, a lot of liberals were insisting we could withdraw in a matter of a few weeks, going so far as to say to abandon the heavy equipment and ammo dumps.

I didn't think it was a good idea then, and it's not a good idea now.

[citation needed]

You want me to post links from liberal blogs to demonstrate people saying we can just leave that stuff behind?  Really?


I know its pointless to ask. I doubt even you can link into your imagination.
 
2013-06-19 11:13:12 PM
Jesus, do you think we get this stuff back? It costs more to mobilize it than it does to build it, and a lot of that is getting functioning equipment to the theatre. Iraq and Afghanissameasiteverwas cost TRILLIONS in men, material, legitimacy, national prestige... ah, i'm drunk.
 
2013-06-19 11:13:51 PM
Make one big collection of stuff announce an auction and drop in a w54 dialed all the way up
 
2013-06-19 11:15:02 PM
Wow, so we really are copying the Soviet strategy for fighting a war in Afghanistan! Too bad we forgot the part where you're supposed to leave after a decade of complete failure.
 
2013-06-19 11:16:07 PM

Ricardo Klement: propasaurus: Ricardo Klement: Early on during Iraq, a lot of liberals were insisting we could withdraw in a matter of a few weeks, going so far as to say to abandon the heavy equipment and ammo dumps.

I didn't think it was a good idea then, and it's not a good idea now.

[citation needed]

You want me to post links from liberal blogs to demonstrate people saying we can just leave that stuff behind?  Really?


hurry up buttercup
 
2013-06-19 11:16:39 PM
This us nothing new. After VE Day (Victory Europe, WWII) we did exactly the same thing. In fact we hired Germans to destroy much of our equipment. I clearly remember a picture of a German civilian standing on a pile of P51 parts, destroying them with an axe. Shortly before that picture it was a beautiful, very expensive fighter. The best in the world, but we had thousands of them in theater and the costs and logistics of bringing them home made it less expensive to destroy them where they sat. The Germans were amazed, here we were paying them to do something they had been trying to do on their own for the last four years. Is also important to note that many of these items, the aircraft in particular, were War Weary examples. Having flown thousands of sorties, suffering battle damage and general abuse. It just wasn't worth it to bring them home. Of course, I'd give my left nut (the right one is FAR to valuable) to have one if those discarded P51 Mustangs.
 
2013-06-19 11:17:24 PM

clancifer: Ricardo Klement: propasaurus: Ricardo Klement: Early on during Iraq, a lot of liberals were insisting we could withdraw in a matter of a few weeks, going so far as to say to abandon the heavy equipment and ammo dumps.

I didn't think it was a good idea then, and it's not a good idea now.

[citation needed]

You want me to post links from liberal blogs to demonstrate people saying we can just leave that stuff behind?  Really?

Go big or go home.


http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/democrats-push-for-new-iraq- st rategy-care-bears-t1030.html
 
2013-06-19 11:17:40 PM
Start another pointless war. Duh.
 
2013-06-19 11:20:51 PM

BeSerious: Don't worry, the people they paid to make the stuff are already getting paid to make new stuff.


That was the point! Trillions in cold war spending sitting idle when it could be pacifying the mideast, all while great plans were being drawn up for the robot war with China. The "budget" for the war isn't spent on operations, are you kidding? It all gets funneled into getting ready for the next war. You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want, during that time you build the army you want so you can wait for the next war. What is so hard to understand?!
 
2013-06-19 11:21:14 PM
CTRL+F theme park

0 results

Therefore ... THEME PARK!
 
2013-06-19 11:22:54 PM

Mugato: But it's the welfare mothers who are bleeding us dry!


Maybe they could live in these?
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 11:24:03 PM
The real fail would be spending more than its worth to bring it back. Ergo, scrap it, destroy it, leave it
 
2013-06-19 11:24:12 PM

Mentat: Good thing we didn't waste that money on infrastructure or giving health care to children.


That would be soshulisms. That is actually what conservatives believe.
 
2013-06-19 11:24:25 PM

OBBN: This us nothing new. After VE Day (Victory Europe, WWII) we did exactly the same thing. In fact we hired Germans to destroy much of our equipment. I clearly remember a picture of a German civilian standing on a pile of P51 parts, destroying them with an axe. Shortly before that picture it was a beautiful, very expensive fighter. The best in the world, but we had thousands of them in theater and the costs and logistics of bringing them home made it less expensive to destroy them where they sat. The Germans were amazed, here we were paying them to do something they had been trying to do on their own for the last four years. Is also important to note that many of these items, the aircraft in particular, were War Weary examples. Having flown thousands of sorties, suffering battle damage and general abuse. It just wasn't worth it to bring them home. Of course, I'd give my left nut (the right one is FAR to valuable) to have one if those discarded P51 Mustangs.


Few are promoted to green4 so quickly. But i've got a soft spot for second world war buffs who are illustrating one of my drunken points. True story.
 
2013-06-19 11:24:55 PM
The Barry Sotero era of American history. Everyone gets free stuff. EEEVERYONEEEEEE!

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 11:25:16 PM

FreetardoRivera: You want me to post links from liberal blogs to demonstrate people saying we can just leave that stuff behind?  Really?

hurry up buttercup


Aww, baby ran off with his tail between his legs.

/or to fabricate some fake blogs
 
2013-06-19 11:26:08 PM
Nobody really cares and if you try to protest anything in this country, you're branded a "dirty hippie" by the media and enough sheep follow the corporate line to make change impossible. We're screwed.
 
Displayed 50 of 245 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report