How many billions to be tossed away!!????

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/05/billions-of-dollars-worth-of-mraps-head-to-the-scr.aspx#.UsotDdp3uzc Billions of Dollars' Worth of MRAPs Head to the Scrapyard. Who Profits?

By Rich Smith | More Articles | Save For Later
January 5, 2014 | Comments (0)
During 10 years of continuous warfare, the U.S. spent $50 billion building a fleet of 25,000 Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected armored vehicles, or MRAPs, to protect our troops. Over the years, these vehicles won praise for saving the lives of thousands of servicemen and -women, who might not have survived had they been riding in Humvees when attacked by IEDs. But now, their time is done.

The war in Iraq is over (for us), and the war in Afghanistan is winding down. And the MRAPs? They're headed for the scrapyard.

With little immediate need for heavy, heavily armored gas slurping trucks in its future, the U.S. military is trying to figure out what to do with all its MRAPs. The Army hopes to sell as many as 2,000 MRAPs to friendly foreign nations, and destroy thousands more (to keep them out of enemy hands). Roughly half the force will then be shipped back stateside, and to forward-deployed locations for mothballing -- where they will await the next war in a state of suspended animation.

The only question remaining: Which MRAPs, specifically, will the military keep, and which will it scrap?
On this question hinges the fortunes of the half-dozen odd companies that worked to build the military some 25 different variants on the "MRAP" concept. The companies that manufacture the MRAPs that the military keeps could win millions of dollars in additional contacts to repair, refurbish, and pack away MRAPs for a rainy day. Those whose MRAPs the Pentagon decides to ditch ... will not.

So ... who are the winners and losers in this contest?

According to a report on DefenseNews.com over the weekend, the U.S. Army has finished tallying its needs for future MRAPs and decided to keep 8,585 vehicles total, and 5,651 of the most modern, all-terrain version of the MRAP, Oshkosh's (NYSE: OSK ) M-ATV will be retained, as will 2,934 MaxxPro Dash and MaxxPro armored ambulances from Navistar (NYSE: NAV ) Obama has been the CIC FOR ALMOST 5 YEARS NOW. So where was his watchful eye on all this? That's right folks when it comes to wasting billions he is all for it.. In fact , he prefers wasting trillions, anything to weaken us! ANYTHING TO WEAKEN US! GET IT, IT IS WHAT TRAITORS DO..-Tyr

[fj1200]

Um, what?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Um, what? Huh?

[fj1200]

I'm glad we agree that there was very little tying the story to your comments. :poke:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm glad we agree that there was very little tying the story to your comments. :poke: Sure .


With little immediate need for heavy, heavily armored gas slurping trucks in its future, the U.S. military is trying to figure out what to do with all its MRAPs. The Army hopes to sell as many as 2,000 MRAPs to friendly foreign nations, and destroy thousands more (to keep them out of enemy hands). No waste. How much money wasted are those thousands of vehicles being destroyed? It did not say mere dozens of hundreds. These are not inexpensive vehicles. My comment had merit you just disagree with it. Nice try .-Tyr

[fj1200]

Sure .
No waste. How much money wasted are those thousands of vehicles being destroyed? It did not say mere dozens of hundreds. These are not inexpensive vehicles. My comment had merit you just disagree with it. Nice try .-Tyr

I didn't say that there wasn't any waste just that you automatically tied it to BO with little evidence other than he's the POTUS.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I didn't say that there wasn't any waste just that you automatically tied it to BO with little evidence other than he's the POTUS. Really? Do you not understand the meaning of Commander in Chief? The bamscum happens to be that too. Perhaps if you didn't worry so much about defending him you wouldn't miss such details, eh? ;) Remember the buck stops at his desk on military matters TOO! Or do you maintain that he gets a pass on that as well? -Tyr

[fj1200]

Really? Do you not understand the meaning of Commander in Chief? The bamscum happens to be that too. Perhaps if you didn't worry so much about defending him you wouldn't miss such details, eh? ;) Remember the buck stops at his desk on military matters TOO! Or do you maintain that he gets a pass on that as well? -Tyr

:rolleyes: The exact same thing would have happened had Romney won. The knock on BO, by some. is how he's incompetent and hands-off, are you now thinking he's not incompetent and so hands-on that he's fiddling around with Army projections of equipment needs? You have no point here; unless you think we should forward the unneeded equipment to various PDs around the country.

EDIT:

And for those thinking I'm defending BO... :laugh: and I am stating that he's both incompetent and hands-off.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:rolleyes: The exact same thing would have happened had Romney won. The knock on BO, by some. is how he's incompetent and hands-off, are you now thinking he's not incompetent and so hands-on that he's fiddling around with Army projections of equipment needs? You have no point here; unless you think we should forward the unneeded equipment to various PDs around the country.

EDIT:

And for those thinking I'm defending BO... :laugh: and I am stating that he's both incompetent and hands-off.

Maybe ,maybe not but dealing in reality is that it did happen with Obama. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Maybe ,maybe not but dealing in reality is that it did happen with Obama. -Tyr

It doesn't matter that it did unless...


... he's fiddling around with Army projections of equipment needs...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It doesn't matter that it did unless... What, you think he hasn't been ? Why wouldn't he since the army has grown so much weaker since he took over, why wouldn't he do that as well?

[fj1200]

You're deluded if you think he's fiddling around with army projections for a single piece of equipment for a cost that was incurred years ago. BO sucks enough on his own to have to make up issues.

[CSM]

You're deluded if you think he's fiddling around with army projections for a single piece of equipment for a cost that was incurred years ago. BO sucks enough on his own to have to make up issues.

I serioulsy doubt that Obama has the mental capacity or even the inclination to interfere with the Army acquisition process (one way or the other). He hires other liberal socialists to do that and their sole function is to coordinate the efforts of the media, the DNC, Congress and the mindless, liberal horde in screwing up whatever they decide needs screwing up. It's been working well for them all, so far.

[fj1200]

I serioulsy doubt that Obama has the mental capacity or even the inclination to interfere with the Army acquisition process (one way or the other). He hires other liberal socialists to do that and their sole function is to coordinate the efforts of the media, the DNC, Congress and the mindless, liberal horde in screwing up whatever they decide needs screwing up. It's been working well for them all, so far.

I certainly agree with that. I'm also pretty sure that his minions are nowhere near this sort of decision.

On another note:

5852

:eek: Holy crap those things are huge.

[CSM]

I certainly agree with that. I'm also pretty sure that his minions are nowhere near this sort of decision.

On another note:

5852

:eek: Holy crap those things are huge.

Yep, they are... gas mileage is something to behold too. My view on these things (from their inception) is "if you are going to build a tank; build a damn tank!" You may remember the whole discussion about body armor as well. Nobody wants to see coffins coming home, but no soldier wants to be so encumbered that he can't move either.

[Abbey Marie]

I'll take one! I'd love to traverse the Jersey traffic circles in one of these.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You're deluded if you think he's fiddling around with army projections for a single piece of equipment for a cost that was incurred years ago. BO sucks enough on his own to have to make up issues. Sure he doesn't do it himself. He has a Secretary of Defense to do his bidding. If you think any of his appointed czars/cabinet heads are mavericks bucking his agenda you are bonkers. If I run a company and tell my supervisors to fire people they get the blame for doing the firings but the real responsibility lies on my shoulders. bampunk insulates himself with layers of fall guys.--Tyr

[fj1200]

Sure he doesn't do it himself. He has a Secretary of Defense to do his bidding. If you think any of his appointed czars/cabinet heads are mavericks bucking his agenda you are bonkers. If I run a company and tell my supervisors to fire people they get the blame for doing the firings but the real responsibility lies on my shoulders. bampunk insulates himself with layers of fall guys.--Tyr

I'm sure Gates and now Hagel, both Republicans BTW, at DoD were in on the whole thing too. I mean you've got plenty of evidence that they wasted $50BB on new armored vehicles to protect the troops spent over 10 years voted on by multiple Congresses and signed off on by a Republican POTUS that BO was just waiting for the perfect time for an administrative Army decision to mothball/destroy some vehicles because we're no longer knee deep in two wars. Damning stuff. :rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm sure Gates and now Hagel, both Republicans BTW, at DoD were in on the whole thing too. I mean you've got plenty of evidence that they wasted $50BB on new armored vehicles to protect the troops spent over 10 years voted on by multiple Congresses and signed off on by a Republican POTUS that BO was just waiting for the perfect time for an administrative Army decision to mothball/destroy some vehicles because we're no longer knee deep in two wars. Damning stuff. :rolleyes:
When he is on record being destroyer of our military I do not need such evidence to know he would be all for it. Example here --


http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/general-obama-purposely-weakening-u-s-military/
General: Obama purposely weakening U.S. military

Former Pacific Command leader warns against giving global enemies combat advantage

Published: 11/25/2013 at 10:33 PM


WASHINGTON – A former deputy commanding general of the U.S. Pacific Command says President Obama seeks to “seize control over national security” and, bypassing Congress, singlehandedly weaken the U.S. military.

Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, retired, charges in a 21-page position statement made available to WND, titled “The Obama Military – Evolution and Legacy,” that Obama already has begun working with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons without a treaty, which would require Senate ratification.

“This would allow Obama and the executive branch to unilaterally cut our military capability and nuclear weaponry and ignore the treaty clause of the Constitution,” said Vallely, who has also served as a senior military analyst for Fox News Channel. Vallely has also charged, along with several other top generals, that Obama is purging the military by firing top-level commanders and that his ultimate goal is to “destroy U.S. military superiority” to the “advantage of our global enemies.”

In his capacity as chairman of the organization Stand Up America, Vallely previously called for the resignations of Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and certain congressional leaders, issuing a “national call to action” aimed at bringing about those resignations.

Vallely is far from the only one worried about a plunge in military capabilities under Obama’s administration.

Frank Gaffney, former acting assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration, has asserted that placing women in combat is just the latest example of a “deliberate and systematic wrecking operation” the administration has conducted against the U.S. armed forces since 2009.

In addition, the Obama administration has directed measures to reduce the Pentagon budget by $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years, said Gaffney, currently president of the Washington-based Center for Security Policy.

In turn, this is bringing about the elimination or slowing of virtually all modernization programs, reduction in maintenance of worn-out weapons systems and other equipment and diminished training and cutting back in benefits, such as the plan the Pentagon has ordered to cut out commissary privileges at all of the military’s 178 U.S. and 70 foreign bases.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/general-obama-purposely-weakening-u-s-military/#rvGQVfmtxxU7H98p.99 For more information check out these articles at that link given. -Tyr -----
WND Related Stories



White House foreign policy blasted as 'amateur'

U.S. general leads fresh assault on Obama policies

U.S. Marine predicted own brutal murder by 'ally'

U.S. generals now take action to watch Obama

Pentagon orders plan to close all commissaries


U.S. general: Let's make Obama resign

U.S. war readiness in jeopardy as pilots flee

Ex-Navy commander calls senior officers 'political pawns'

Obama building 'compliant officer class'

Couple's mission: Honor Gold Star families

Obama 'weakening military in unprecedented ways'

America's chance to help nation's heroes

Allen West: Congress must probe military firings

General blames 'Night Stalker' for military purge

'Purge surge': Obama fires another commander

Top generals: Obama is 'purging the military'

Obama aims 'wrecking operation' at military

Obama 'gutting military' by purging generals

General: Obama dangerously weakens U.S.

[fj1200]

When he is on record being destroyer of our military I do not need such evidence to know he would be all for it. Example here --

Uh huh. :rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Uh huh. :rolleyes: What no comment on this article?
Are these men lying? --Tyr

General: Obama purposely weakening U.S. military

Former Pacific Command leader warns against giving global enemies combat advantage

Published: 11/25/2013 at 10:33 PM


WASHINGTON – A former deputy commanding general of the U.S. Pacific Command says President Obama seeks to “seize control over national security” and, bypassing Congress, singlehandedly weaken the U.S. military.

Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, retired, charges in a 21-page position statement made available to WND, titled “The Obama Military – Evolution and Legacy,” that Obama already has begun working with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons without a treaty, which would require Senate ratification.

“This would allow Obama and the executive branch to unilaterally cut our military capability and nuclear weaponry and ignore the treaty clause of the Constitution,” said Vallely, who has also served as a senior military analyst for Fox News Channel. Vallely has also charged, along with several other top generals, that Obama is purging the military by firing top-level commanders and that his ultimate goal is to “destroy U.S. military superiority” to the “advantage of our global enemies.”

In his capacity as chairman of the organization Stand Up America, Vallely previously called for the resignations of Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and certain congressional leaders, issuing a “national call to action” aimed at bringing about those resignations.

Vallely is far from the only one worried about a plunge in military capabilities under Obama’s administration.

Frank Gaffney, former acting assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration, has asserted that placing women in combat is just the latest example of a “deliberate and systematic wrecking operation” the administration has conducted against the U.S. armed forces since 2009.

In addition, the Obama administration has directed measures to reduce the Pentagon budget by $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years, said Gaffney, currently president of the Washington-based Center for Security Policy.

In turn, this is bringing about the elimination or slowing of virtually all modernization programs, reduction in maintenance of worn-out weapons systems and other equipment and diminished training and cutting back in benefits, such as the plan the Pentagon has ordered to cut out commissary privileges at all of the military’s 178 U.S. and 70 foreign bases.

[fj1200]

^ I see a lot of opinion that you've already accepted as fact and conclusion.

[Arbo]

^ I see a lot of opinion that you've already accepted as fact and conclusion.


It's amazing what people can find when they go looking for stories to back up beliefs they already have, eh? :poke:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

^ I see a lot of opinion that you've already accepted as fact and conclusion. I see a lot of military , high ranking military men speaking out and giving warning about what obamascum is doing. Are they lying too ?? Damn, everybody lies about Obama huh? I am not as gullible as are so many Americans. I see a deadly snake I cut its head off. I don't pretend its a damn worm and let it bite some innocent unsuspecting person!! Obama is a damn snake if one ever existed!--Tyr

[aboutime]

Tyr. Forget trying to convince, or simply inform anyone who doesn't want to be convinced, or informed like 'fj', and many others.

They are so convinced...Only They are right about everything, while everyone else...who dares not to agree with them...must be wrong.

Let them believe, and think whatever they want. THEY JUST AREN'T WORTH IT.

Eventually. When they discover how stupid they are. It will be too late for them anyway.

[logroller]

I see a lot of military , high ranking military men speaking out and giving warning about what obamascum is doing. Are they lying too ?? Damn, everybody lies about Obama huh? I am not as gullible as are so many Americans. I see a deadly snake I cut its head off. I don't pretend its a damn worm and let it bite some innocent unsuspecting person!! Obama is a damn snake if one ever existed!--Tyr
There were a lot of high ranking military members that spoke out against the Iraq war too. Its a diverse world with diverse opinions. If Obama decided to keep every last one of these MRAPs there'd be criticism of that too. The military budget, while mind-numbing in scale is finite, NOT UNLIMITED, and decisions on where to spend and where to cut is always going to upset someone. I find it interesting the OP listed a stock ticker for the civilian contractor that does maintenance...I smell pecuniary interests==> follow the money.

[jimnyc]

It's amazing what people can find when they go looking for stories to back up beliefs they already have, eh? :poke:

Someone searching for an article and posting it for discussion - always better than someone not looking for articles, not posting anything at all for discussion and just chiming in to troll. If you have an issue with an actual article, why not lay out the specific issues you have with it and debate and/or discuss it?

[fj1200]

I see a lot of military , high ranking military men speaking out and giving warning about what obamascum is doing. Are they lying too ?? Damn, everybody lies about Obama huh? I am not as gullible as are so many Americans. I see a deadly snake I cut its head off. I don't pretend its a damn worm and let it bite some innocent unsuspecting person!! Obama is a damn snake if one ever existed!--Tyr

Did I say anyone was lying? I fully acknowledge that they are entitled to their opinions. I suppose that they have good reasons for their opinions, possibly even some facts. I don't think that a decision about MRAPs is evidence of such. The man sucks enough that there is no need to stretch.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Someone searching for an article and posting it for discussion - always better than someone not looking for articles, not posting anything at all for discussion and just chiming in to troll. If you have an issue with an actual article, why not lay out the specific issues you have with it and debate and/or discuss it? Jim some people haven't enough integrity in them to present honestly their opinions. And they haven't enough honor to give opposition any credit when they do. Almost every forum has a few characters like that. Smart as a damn brick but thinking that they are raving geniuses which the world rarely ever gets to witness! :laugh::laugh: Some are a pure troll while some are not trollish but instead just a pure dumbass. Its a toss up which one is worse IMHO. I AM GOING WITH IT BEING THE PURE DUMBASS. :laugh:-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Did I say anyone was lying? I fully acknowledge that they are entitled to their opinions. I suppose that they have good reasons for their opinions, possibly even some facts. I don't think that a decision about MRAPs is evidence of such. The man sucks enough that there is no need to stretch. Fair enough answer. Man, have to draw 'em out of you. Like squeezing juice out of an orange. ;) Methinks you have one of those rare fetishes-- "Squeeze fetish". :poke:--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

There were a lot of high ranking military members that spoke out against the Iraq war too. Its a diverse world with diverse opinions. If Obama decided to keep every last one of these MRAPs there'd be criticism of that too. The military budget, while mind-numbing in scale is finite, NOT UNLIMITED, and decisions on where to spend and where to cut is always going to upset someone. I find it interesting the OP listed a stock ticker for the civilian contractor that does maintenance...I smell pecuniary interests==> follow the money. That has more weight to it when the ones speaking out against such corruption are very few. Now that the numbers are growing sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo massively it doesn't. However nice try . Too much evidence against Obama by his deeds and his true character for that lead balloon to float now IMHO.-Tyr

[fj1200]

Fair enough answer. Man, have to draw 'em out of you. Like squeezing juice out of an orange. ;) Methinks you have one of those rare fetishes-- "Squeeze fetish". :poke:--Tyr

I thought that's what I said on page one. :poke: Nevertheless, it's more of a twist fetish. :cool:

[fj1200]

I find it interesting the OP listed a stock ticker for the civilian contractor that does maintenance...I smell pecuniary interests==> follow the money.

Not really interesting. It's from fool.com as in Motley Fool. Following the money is their raison d'etre.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not really interesting. It's from fool.com as in Motley Fool. Following the money is their raison d'etre. One must take into considerations the other acts by the traitor in chief when looking at these things. And one must also consider the type of scum he puts into power positions to help him weaken our military. The primary point is his weakening our military. One which nobody has proven to be false. Much evidence that shows it has been his doing has been chalked up to simple mistakes by him or blame placed upon one of his many fall guys but the old adage , "the buck stops here", applies to his sorry worthless lying ass just as it did to other Presidents. Too many people ignore that fact IMHO. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Is there any proof that doesn't tie back to WND?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Is there any proof that doesn't tie back to WND? Yes, will try to post tomorrow. Must take some pain meds and hit the hay now. Tyr

[logroller]

Not really interesting. It's from fool.com as in Motley Fool. Following the money is their raison d'etre.
Google Military industrial complex: Capitalism has its flaws.


That has more weight to it when the ones speaking out against such corruption are very few.
Its extensive :
Several prominent members of the military and national security communities, particularly those who favor a more realist approach to international relations, have been critical of both the decision to invade Iraq and the prosecution of the War.

On July 28, 2002, eight months before the invasion of Iraq, the Washington Post reported that "many senior U.S. military officers" including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed an invasion on the grounds that the policy of containment was working.[8]


A few days later, Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (Ret.) warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the invasion was risky and perhaps unnecessary.


Morton Halperin, a foreign policy expert with the Council on Foreign Relations and Center for American Progress warned that an invasion would increase the terrorist threat.[9]


In a 2002 book, Scott Ritter, a Nuclear Weapons Inspector in Iraq from 1991–98, argued against an invasion and expressed doubts about the Bush Administration’s claims that Saddam Hussein had a WMD capability.[10] He later accused the Bush administration of deliberately misleading the public.


I think [The Bush Administration] has stated that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and that's as simple as they want to keep it. They don't want to get into the nitty-gritty things such as if you bury a Scud missile to hide it from detection, there is a little thing called corrosion. Where do you hide the fuel, how do you make this stuff up, how do you align it. Because when you disassemble it, there is a process called re-alignment. There is a factory involved in that. And then you have to test launch it to make sure that the alignment works, and that's detectable, and they haven't done that. There is a lot of common sense things that go into consideration of whether or not Iraq has a operational weapons of mass destruction capability.[11]


Brent Scowcroft, who served as National Security Adviser to President George H.W. Bush was an early critic. He wrote an August 15, 2002 editorial in The Wall Street Journal entitled "Don't attack Saddam," arguing that the war would distract from the broader fight against terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which should be the U.S.'s highest priority in the Middle East.[12] The next month, Gen. Hugh Shelton, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agreed that war in Iraq would distract from the War on Terrorism.[13]


Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command for U.S. forces in the Middle East and State Department's envoy to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, echoed many of Scowcroft's concerns in an October 2002 speech at the Middle East Institute. In a follow-up interview with Salon, Zinni said he was "not convinced we need to do this now," arguing that deposing Saddam Hussein was only the sixth or seventh top priority in the Middle East, behind the Middle East peace process, reforming Iran, our commitments in Afghanistan, and several others.[14]


By January 19, 2003, TIME Magazine reported that "as many as 1 in 3 senior officers questions the wisdom of a preemptive war with Iraq."[15]


On February 13, 2003 Ambassador Joseph Wilson, former chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, resigned from the Foreign Service and publicly questioned the need for another war in Iraq.[16] After the War started, he wrote an editorial in the New York Times titled What I Didn't Find in Africa that claimed to discredit a Bush Administration claim that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from Niger.[17]


John Brady Kiesling, another career diplomat with similar reservations, resigned in a public letter in the New York Times on February 27.[18] He was followed on March 10 by John H. Brown, a career diplomat with 22 years of service,[19] and on March 19 by Mary Ann Wright, a diplomat with 15 years of service in the State Department following a military career of 29 years.[20] The war started the next day.


Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (Ret.) was political/military desk officer at the Defense Department’s office for Near East South Asia (NESA) in the months before the war. In December 2003 she began to write an anonymous column that described the disrupting influence of the Office of Special Plans on the analysis that led to the decision to go to war.[21]


On June 16, 2004 twenty seven former senior U.S. diplomats and military commanders called Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change issued a statement against the war.[22] The group included:


William J. Crowe, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan
Joseph Hoar, former Commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East
H. Allen Holmes, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations
Donald McHenry, former Ambassador to the United Nations
Merrill McPeak, former Air Force Chief of Staff
Jack F. Matlock, Jr., a member of the National Security Council under Reagan and former Ambassador to the Soviet Union
John Reinhardt, former Director of the United States Information Agency
Ronald I. Spiers, Under Secretary General of the United Nations for Political Affairs and a former Ambassador
Stansfield Turner, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
Richard Clarke, former chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council for both the latter part of the Clinton Administration and early part of the George W. Bush Administration, criticized the Iraq war along similar lines in his 2004 book Against All Enemies and during his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. In addition to diverting funds from the fight against al-Qaeda, Clarke argued that the invasion of Iraq would actually bolster the efforts of Osama bin Laden and other Islamic radicals, who had long predicted that the U.S. planned to invade an oil-rich Middle Eastern country.


Similar arguments were made in a May 2004 interview[23] and an August 2005 article by Lt. Gen. William Odom, former Director of the National Security Agency.[24]


In April 2006, six prominent retired generals publicly criticized Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's handling of the war, and called for his resignation.[25] The group included two generals who commanded troops in Iraq: Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack, Jr. (Ret.) and Maj. Gen. John Batiste (Ret.).[26] One of the generals, Lieut. Gen. Greg Newbold (Ret.), who served as the Pentagon's top operations officer during the months leading up to the invasion, also published an article that month in Time Magazine entitled "Why Iraq Was a Mistake."[27]


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War

Now that the numbers are growing sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo massively it doesn't. However nice try . Too much evidence against Obama by his deeds and his true character for that lead balloon to float now IMHO.-Tyr
Uh,, lemming guess that your sources are more prominent or numerous than mine...with all due respect, that's BS. He's a shitty pres, no doubt, but the facts you present don't support your assertion of intentionally weakening the military. Nice try though.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Google Military industrial complex: Capitalism has its flaws.


Its extensive : http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War

Uh,, lemming guess that your sources are more prominent or numerous than mine...with all due respect, that's BS. He's a shitty pres, no doubt, but the facts you present don't support your assertion of intentionally weakening the military. Nice try though. Sorry logroller, but I fail to see how anti-war sentiment from a war fought applies to the point I was making about Obama deliberately weakening our military. If you care to give me some clues how it is pertinent be my guest. Additionally , accumulated evidence from a massive anti-war media campaign and its allies that targeted Rumsfield and Bush prove only that it's proponents sought to destroy by any means(primarily propaganda swaying public opinion) that which they could not conquer. I am sure there has already been many threads on that very subject. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

1. “Obama deliberately weakens America by gutting military”, One ...
www.onenewsnow.com/.../obama-deliberately-weakens-america-by-gutti...‎
Aug 1, 2013 - If America is to be brought down, our military must be emasculated, neutered, feminized, and weakened beyond repair. That process is ... 2. Bryan
Fischer: "Obama deliberately weakens America by gutting ...
www.examiner.com/.../bryan-fischer-obama-deliberately-weakens-ameri...‎
Aug 1, 2013 - This time, Fischer's charge is that Obama is deliberately gutting the military, which "-is happening at warp speed under the direction of our ...
3. Blaze Sources: Obama Purging Military Commanders | TheBlaze.com
www.theblaze.com/.../military-sources-obama-administration-purging-co...‎
Oct 23, 2013 - Nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the Obama ... He's intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and ...
4. Obama deliberately weakens America by gutting military - The ...
www.conservativecave.com › ... › Military Topics › Military Discussion‎
Aug 3, 2013 - 15 posts - ‎3 authors
Obama deliberately weakens America by gutting military. ... If America is to be brought down, our military must be emasculated, neutered, ...
5. Dr. Charles Ormsby - Is Obama Intentionally trying to Destroy ...
www.valleypatriot.com/VP0611ormsby.htm‎
Is Obama Intentionally Seeking to Destroy America? .... and their fiefdoms, Obama's weakening of our military, his other debilitating foreign policy decisions, and ...
6. Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely: Obama is intentionally weakening and ...
www.truthandaction.org/maj-gen-paul-vallely-obama-intentionally-weak...‎
Nov 5, 2013 - “Obama is intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who ...
7. Obama's Military Purge | FrontPage Magazine
www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obamas-military-purge/‎
Oct 28, 2013 - “[Obama is] intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who ...
8. America's New Military | MyPulseNews.com
mypulsenews.com/americas-new-military/‎
Dec 1, 2013 - “There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire ... He's intentionally weakening and gutting our military and the ...
9. Obama Weakening and Gutting Our Military – Gen. Paul Vallely on ...
universalfreepress.com/obama-weakening-and-gutting-our-military-gen-...‎
Oct 30, 2013 - “Obama is intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who ...
10. Obama's Military Purge — The Patriot Post
patriotpost.us/posts/21271‎
Oct 29, 2013 - The list of senior military commanders fired by Obama continues to grow, ... He's intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and ...
11. Articles: Remaking the Military in the Image of Obama
www.americanthinker.com/.../remaking_the_military_in_the_image_of_...‎
Nov 14, 2013 - He's [Mr. Obama] intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who ...
12. Obama intentionally weakening our military over politics ...
dailyworldwidenews.com/?p=7916‎
Oct 23, 2013 - President Obama has laid off many of our top military commanders and is weakening the United States' status around the world because he ...
13. Is the Obama administration deliberately weakening our military ...
winteryknight.wordpress.com/.../is-the-obama-administration-deliberatel...‎
May 12, 2010 - Consider this article from the Weekly Standard. (H/T ECM) Excerpt: When Secretary of Defense Robert Gates went to Chicago last summer to ... How about a lucky 13 for starts fj. And there are lots more. -Tyr

[aboutime]

Google Military industrial complex: Capitalism has its flaws.


Its extensive : http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War

Uh,, lemming guess that your sources are more prominent or numerous than mine...with all due respect, that's BS. He's a shitty pres, no doubt, but the facts you present don't support your assertion of intentionally weakening the military. Nice try though.



log. And nobody here recognizes how you intentionally didn't mention how the ALTERNATIVES to Capitalism...such as Socialism, Communism, and Fascism are FLAWED even more.
But then again. If that's the kind of life you wish to live, under the thumb of others who will do your thinking for you.
ENJOY.

[fj1200]

Google Military industrial complex: Capitalism has its flaws.

Nuh uh. It's only flaw is that it's so awesome that every other ideology has to try and tear it down because it's the only one that works. :slap:

Now some of its required elements may be hindered to varying degrees, transparency, barriers to entry, etc. but that doesn't inherently mean that capitalism is flawed.

[fj1200]

How about a lucky 13 for starts fj. And there are lots more. -Tyr

Your links are busted from the copy/paste but did you just google "BO weakening military"? Be honest. :poke:

[aboutime]

Your links are busted from the copy/paste but did you just google "BO weakening military"? Be honest. :poke:


fj. How bout this kind of proof. Living in one of the largest military places in the U.S., having thousands of neighbors in UNIFORM. All of my neighbors are Military. Most of them know, but are forbidden from going public about how OBAMA, and CONGRESS are tearing them, and their families down...one member at a time.
The links may be bad. BUT FACTS..from REAL HUMAN BEINGS are not.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your links are busted from the copy/paste but did you just google "BO weakening military"? Be honest. :poke:

Damn, Sherlock you are good! :laugh: :poke: --Tyr

[Arbo]

Someone searching for an article and posting it for discussion - always better than someone not looking for articles, not posting anything at all for discussion and just chiming in to troll. If you have an issue with an actual article, why not lay out the specific issues you have with it and debate and/or discuss it?

Hey look, another lecture for me. Perhaps I should just say that I'd approve if some other members parents had an abortion, as that appears to be fine discussion, even when it's not related to the discussion at hand.

[jimnyc]

Hey look, another lecture for me. Perhaps I should just say that I'd approve if some other members parents had an abortion, as that appears to be fine discussion, even when it's not related to the discussion at hand.

No more lectures. I'll just remove you from discussions. I'm not here to debate moderator decisions or to seek your approval. Bye.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Back on topic... -Tyr

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/17/politics/coburn-government-waste/
Coburn shows what $28 billion in government waste looks like


By Leigh Ann Caldwell, CNN

updated 3:03 PM EST, Tue December 17, 2013

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, speaks during a news conference to release his annual report of what he calls

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, speaks during a news conference to release his annual report of what he calls "wasteful and low-priority" spending.



STORY HIGHLIGHTS
GOP Sen. Tom Coburn released his annual report on government waste
He highlighted 100 government programs and $28 billion worth of "questionable" spending
Coburn cites programs and other spending in many government agencies
Agencies in question consider the spending legitimate




Washington (CNN) -- Q. What does NASA's "Green Ninja," calm wives and military weapons in Afghanistan have in common?

A. They all made Republican Sen. Tom Coburn's annual book of government waste.

The Oklahoma Republican, a devout believer in small government, said the federal government wasted $28 billion in 2013 on "questionable and lower-priority" programs.

Coburn, who supports deep cuts to the federal budget, said government waste could still be found despite outrage over the automatic budget cuts that went into effect last year.

"While (President Barack Obama) and his Cabinet issued dire warnings about the cataclysmic impacts of sequestration, taxpayers were not alerted to all of the waste being spared from the budget axe," Coburn wrote in his report titled "Wastebook 2013."

Agencies that received the money don't consider it wasted, however.

The 177-page report that Coburn has been compiling for five years highlighted programs from the departments of Defense to Agriculture, from NASA to the National Institutes of Health.

"The nearly $30 billion in questionable and lower-priority spending in

"Wastebook 2013" is a small fraction of the more than $200 billion we throw away every year through fraud, waste, duplication and mismanagement," he said.

Coburn's examples of waste:

Weapons destruction -- $7 billion

Weapons destruction: Coburn said the Pentagon junking weapons and vehicles used in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

"The military has decided to simply destroy more than $7 billion worth of equipment rather than sell it or ship it back home," Coburn said.

For instance, Coburn said "thousands" of heavily armored vehicles -- MRAPs --used to protect troops from roadside bombs "will simply be shredded."

[fj1200]

Or...


It would be easy to snicker and denounce waste with the benefit of hindsight. And it is spiteful to nickel and dime when the lives of the troops are at stake. But one thing is sure, it has proven remarkably expensive to fight an enemy equipped with donkeys and Toyota pickup trucks. At least the US military is not falling victim to the sunk cost fallacy, or, in plain speak, the act of throwing good money after bad. If MRAPs have met their goals and are just too costly to ship back to the US or to friendly nations, then scrapping them might well be the only rational thing left to do.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mraps-shipping-post-coin-needs-019723/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Or...


http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mraps-shipping-post-coin-needs-019723/ What is worse waste, greed and corruption or using waste ,greed and corruption as a means to an end. Using it as a weakening tactic? War and Defense hinge on the amount of money spent and how well its used to develop weapons systems to stay ahead. Waste billions and weaken the military is as easy to think up as a strategy as flattening a tire on an opponents car during a race. And has an additional benefit if a huge chunk of the money can be sent into political allies hands . Anybody that thinks Obama's handler George Soros doesn't know this is ignorant and gullible to boot. --Tyr

[fj1200]

What is worse waste, greed and corruption or using waste ,greed and corruption as a means to an end. Using it as a weakening tactic? War and Defense hinge on the amount of money spent and how well its used to develop weapons systems to stay ahead. Waste billions and weaken the military is as easy to think up as a strategy as flattening a tire on an opponents car during a race. And has an additional benefit if a huge chunk of the money can be sent into political allies hands . Anybody that thinks Obama's handler George Soros doesn't know this is ignorant and gullible to boot. --Tyr

And you keep alleging that with no proof. The "waste" has already occurred over the past 10 years and was specifically for the safety of the troops in particular theaters and response to particular threats. Are you suggesting that we should not have "wasted" those funds protecting the troops?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And you keep alleging that with no proof. The "waste" has already occurred over the past 10 years and was specifically for the safety of the troops in particular theaters and response to particular threats. Are you suggesting that we should not have "wasted" those funds protecting the troops? Really!?? So Obama wasn't CIC for 5 of those "ten years"? You see it is just that kind of thinking that gives him a pass on most things. He has it set up where he gets all the credit for anything going well and zero blame for things going badly. A great setup if one can ever manage to get it into place. Are you saying as the Prez and the CIC he has no responsibility for what goes on in the military? Proof was in the link and other links I gave. --Tyr

[fj1200]

Really!?? So Obama wasn't CIC for 5 of those "ten years"? You see it is just that kind of thinking that gives him a pass on most things. He has it set up where he gets all the credit for anything going well and zero blame for things going badly. A great setup if one can ever manage to get it into place. Are you saying as the Prez and the CIC he has no responsibility for what goes on in the military? Proof was in the link and other links I gave. --Tyr

:facepalm99: Are you suggesting that Congress did not vote on the appropriations for advanced vehicles for the safety of our troops. If I even bother to look I would probably find that the votes were taken during the Bush administration but that's just a guess.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:facepalm99: Are you suggesting that Congress did not vote on the appropriations for advanced vehicles for the safety of our troops. If I even bother to look I would probably find that the votes were taken during the Bush administration but that's just a guess. Are you suggesting that all waste going on now goes back to Bush!?? You know Obama is in his second term, right? :poke: --Tyr

[fj1200]

Are you suggesting that all waste going on now goes back to Bush!?? You know Obama is in his second term, right? :poke: --Tyr

You didn't answer my question. Whatever "waste" there was is due to having to roll out new equipment to fight the enemy.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You didn't answer my question. Whatever "waste" there was is due to having to roll out new equipment to fight the enemy. I disagree. The waste is in not either selling or using those vehicles at our bases around the world and I will not accept any bull about it costing too much to ship them. Let is get into another war where such vehicles are necessary and watch many billions more go into paying for more to be built. WW2 was over 70 years ago and those battle rifles are not useless are they? If you think they are try facing off against the M1 or M1 Garand RIFLE . I'd take either the M1 Garand or the even better M14 over any crap they have now myself. The M14 battle rifle I rate over any battle rifle made past or present. Waste is destroying weapons/weapon systems that still have use. -Tyr

[fj1200]

I disagree. The waste is in not either selling or using those vehicles at our bases around the world and I will not accept any bull about it costing too much to ship them. Let is get into another war where such vehicles are necessary and watch many billions more go into paying for more to be built. WW2 was over 70 years ago and those battle rifles are not useless are they? If you think they are try facing off against the M1 or M1 Garand RIFLE . I'd take either the M1 Garand or the even better M14 over any crap they have now myself. The M14 battle rifle I rate over any battle rifle made past or present. Waste is destroying weapons/weapon systems that still have use. -Tyr

That well may be but the disagreement is with some Army decision and not POTUS fiat that your alleging. And when it costs as much as a vehicle is worth to ship and would likely cost as much to refurbish as it would to purchase one new with upgraded capabilities, safety, etc. it's just not a matter of putting a gun in a cabinet.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That well may be but the disagreement is with some Army decision and not POTUS fiat that your alleging. And when it costs as much as a vehicle is worth to ship and would likely cost as much to refurbish as it would to purchase one new with upgraded capabilities, safety, etc. it's just not a matter of putting a gun in a cabinet. Not that again, "cost as much as its worth to ship"?? Prove that lie will ya? That lie was given to justify doing the crap they are doing. Don't you ever question such outrageous claims as that? -Tyr

[fj1200]

Not that again, "cost as much as its worth to ship"?? Prove that lie will ya? That lie was given to justify doing the crap they are doing. Don't you ever question such outrageous claims as that? -Tyr

You're getting on me about questioning outrageous claims? :laugh: They cost a million bucks new and estimate a 1/4 + of that to ship it back, that's estimating 5-7 billion to get them back and then there are the security issues of driving them out.


The cost of shipping an MRAP back to the US and fixing it up runs the Pentagon about $250,000 to $300,000 per vehicle. With about 11,000 MRAPs in Afghanistan, bringing them all back home is too expensive to contemplate, according to Pentagon officials. Overall, the US military is destroying about $7 billion worth of material in Afghanistan as US troops head for the exits.
...
Between January 2013 and the end of December 2014, it’s estimated that it will cost between $5 billion and $7 billion to bring all US equipment out of Afghanistan, either by ground transport through Pakistan or by air through the Northern Distribution Network.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131204/DEFREG02/312040013/US-Looking-Sell-Portion-Afghan-MRAP-Fleet


BAGRAM, Afghanistan — Faced with an epidemic of deadly roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. military officials ordered up a fleet of V-hulled 16-ton armored behemoths in 2007 to help protect American soldiers and Marines.
...
As it turns out, the Pentagon produced a glut of the mine-resistant, ambush-protected trucks. The military brass has now calculated that it's not worth the cost of shipping home damaged, worn or excess MRAPs to bases already deemed oversupplied with the blast-deflecting vehicles.As they are "demilitarized," many of the MRAPs are sold as scrap metal to eager Afghan buyers.
It costs about $12,000 to crunch and dispose of a single MRAP here, said Mark E. Wright, a Defense Department spokesman. To ship one back to the U.S. and rebuild it to current standards would cost $250,000 to $450,000, he said. Selling the vehicles as scrap instead of shipping them home and refitting them will consequently save about $500 million, Wright said.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/27/world/la-fg-afghanistan-armor-20131227

It's just a cost of war, not a conspiracy.

[aboutime]

This discussion about MRAP is important here on DP because?????????

Would anyone care to tell, or share what talking about the BILLIONS being wasted...other than for the MRAP's? Like...the more important, more visible, much easier to control spending???

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You're getting on me about questioning outrageous claims? :laugh: They cost a million bucks new and estimate a 1/4 + of that to ship it back, that's estimating 5-7 billion to get them back and then there are the security issues of driving them out.


http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131204/DEFREG02/312040013/US-Looking-Sell-Portion-Afghan-MRAP-Fleet


http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/27/world/la-fg-afghanistan-armor-20131227

It's just a cost of war, not a conspiracy. I am not the one saying a million dollar war weapon is not worth shipping back. And if you believe that bullshit that it would cost 250,000 each to ship back you need some serious help my friend. That is pure Pentagon justification right there. And Obama is CiC in case you don't know WHAT that means = he appoints the SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WHICH HE THEN GETS TO TELL TO DO CRAP LIKE THIS. The buck stops with Obama, wiggle how you like and pretend he knows nothing about nothing . His party and he himself hates our military, so why are you adamant in defending him on this? Sure he doesn't have to issue an Executive Order or send a written command to get it done. He simply tells his chief of staff to tell the Secretary of Defense to do it. Sure you say no big deal as 7 billion is peanuts but hey those peanuts add up if you do enough of them. How and why people so dearly want to not hold the damn Commander in Chief responsible for the waste and corruption when its the damn military is beyond my reasoning out. All those excuses you gave were put forth by the Pentagon. Do you think the Pentagon runs the CiC or the other way around? bamscum gives a damn order heads will row if its not carried out no matter how damn many stars they have on their shoulders! Bamscum has canned many career officers for much less and also for simply not playing ball with his treason.--Tyr

[logroller]

This discussion about MRAP is important here on DP because?????????

Would anyone care to tell, or share what talking about the BILLIONS being wasted...other than for the MRAP's? Like...the more important, more visible, much easier to control spending???
Sure. Take your pick:
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Weapons.pdf
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2014/FY2014_Weapons.pdf


I am not the one saying a million dollar war weapon is not worth shipping back. And if you believe that bullshit that it would cost 250,000 each to ship back you need some serious help my friend. That is pure Pentagon justification right there. And Obama is CiC in case you don't know WHAT that means = he appoints the SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WHICH HE THEN GETS TO TELL TO DO CRAP LIKE THIS. The buck stops with Obama, wiggle how you like and pretend he knows nothing about nothing . His party and he himself hates our military, so why are you adamant in defending him on this? Sure he doesn't have to issue an Executive Order or send a written command to get it done. He simply tells his chief of staff to tell the Secretary of Defense to do it. Sure you say no big deal as 7 billion is peanuts but hey those peanuts add up if you do enough of them.
AGAIN. There's a limited budget and costs need to deliver the maximum benefit. These HALF-million dollar machines have been to war-- They're not exactly cherry and heir value sitting in some military junkyard is probably less than their scrap value. Not to mention only about 10% are being scrapped-- likely the models which proved the least durable. I think you're being extremely irrational about this. The war's over; downsize the fleet-- historically speaking its pretty standard protocol.


How and why people so dearly want to not hold the damn Commander in Chief responsible for the waste and corruption when its the damn military is beyond my reasoning out.
wasteful and corruption? Just how much money should we spend to bring something back to rot? And what's corrupt about downsizing after war?


All those excuses you gave were put forth by the Pentagon. Do you think the Pentagon runs the CiC or the other way around? bamscum gives a damn order heads will row if its not carried out no matter how damn many stars they have on their shoulders! Bamscum has canned many career officers for much less and also for simply not playing ball with his treason.--Tyr
Disobeying orders, no matter how many stars one has on their shoulders is not only grounds for dismissal, but court martial. UCMJ Art 92. I get that you hate Obama but in the present case you've passed into frothing madness IMHO.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and your Don Juan the bouncer machismo conceals your true calling as a program-level military appropriations analyst. Audit the following:
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/fy2013_OM_Overview.pdf

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Sure. Take your pick:
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Weapons.pdf
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2014/FY2014_Weapons.pdf


AGAIN. There's a limited budget and costs need to deliver the maximum benefit. These HALF-million dollar machines have been to war-- They're not exactly cherry and heir value sitting in some military junkyard is probably less than their scrap value. Not to mention only about 10% are being scrapped-- likely the models which proved the least durable. I think you're being extremely irrational about this. The war's over; downsize the fleet-- historically speaking its pretty standard protocol.


wasteful and corruption? Just how much money should we spend to bring something back to rot? And what's corrupt about downsizing after war?


Disobeying orders, no matter how many stars one has on their shoulders is not only grounds for dismissal, but court martial. UCMJ Art 92. I get that you hate Obama but in the present case you've passed into frothing madness IMHO.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and your Don Juan the bouncer machismo conceals your true calling as a program-level military appropriations analyst. Audit the following:
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/fy2013_OM_Overview.pdf Accepting the numbers the Pentagon uses to justify its actions in waste and corruption seems to be a bit naïve . Its like accepting as valid a career criminal's justification for why he engages in illegal acts. Certainly not frothy madness but shows a level of gullibility that sometimes amuses me. But hey maybe I am wrong and your high level analytical judgment reigns supreme despite your insecurity that leads you to insult me with such tripe about my personal revelations of my life.


But hey, maybe I'm wrong and your Don Juan the bouncer machismo conceals your true calling as a program-level military appropriations analyst. Maybe it's just my honesty that leads you to feel the need to toss in insults while presenting your genius. You know I have never claimed perfection myself and freely admit that I am wrong sometimes. I just do not admit such until I see it proven to me. Its called integrity. You know the thing that honesty brings you. I tell ya I was about to give serious look at what you were presenting until I saw the insult. Now I believe I'll just dismiss it as window dressing for the true message you sought to convey. Despite your obvious belief of my character and personality, I am not some dumbass country hick. I suggest you should stick to the subject and not toss in insults that reveal your true motive. But hey that just me and its a free world . At least here in USA it is if bamscum doesn't get to complete its destruction. -Tyr

[fj1200]

I am not the one saying a million dollar war weapon is not worth shipping back. And if you believe that bullshit that it would cost 250,000 each to ship back you need some serious help my friend. That is pure Pentagon justification right there. And Obama is CiC in case you don't know WHAT that means = he appoints the SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WHICH HE THEN GETS TO TELL TO DO CRAP LIKE THIS. The buck stops with Obama, wiggle how you like and pretend he knows nothing about nothing . His party and he himself hates our military, so why are you adamant in defending him on this? Sure he doesn't have to issue an Executive Order or send a written command to get it done. He simply tells his chief of staff to tell the Secretary of Defense to do it. Sure you say no big deal as 7 billion is peanuts but hey those peanuts add up if you do enough of them. How and why people so dearly want to not hold the damn Commander in Chief responsible for the waste and corruption when its the damn military is beyond my reasoning out. All those excuses you gave were put forth by the Pentagon. Do you think the Pentagon runs the CiC or the other way around? bamscum gives a damn order heads will row if its not carried out no matter how damn many stars they have on their shoulders! Bamscum has canned many career officers for much less and also for simply not playing ball with his treason.--Tyr

I don't even know what to say anymore. Apparently links, logic, and the professional army making future equipment judgments is worth less than claiming BO is attempting to bankrupt the country $5BB at a time. :rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't even know what to say anymore. Apparently links, logic, and the professional army making future equipment judgments is worth less than claiming BO is attempting to bankrupt the country $5BB at a time. :rolleyes: No, we just disagree. You accept the excuses made by the people profiting and doing the deeds while I am skeptical of accepting facts coming from the robbers and traitors. How about the possibility that should any massive bombing campaign (by muslim terrorists) start here in the near future such weapons would come in handy but have been destroyed? Such a possibility exists you know. And while you are so set against bamscum taking responsibility for such waste how about his secret Iran negotiations that sacrifice Israel's and our nation's best interests? Shouldn't his overall character and actions weigh in on my judgment that accuses him of deliberately weakening our military by any and every means he can find? No pun intended but I paint the bastard black because like no other President in this nation's history he is black! I give you credit for presenting your evidence and not taking cheap shots at me personally but still I do not accept all of it. The truth may be a mixture of both our positions where the military does it more for the reasons you gave while Obama goes along with or put the concept out there for them because he knows it further weakens our military. -Tyr

[aboutime]

Sure. Take your pick:
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Weapons.pdf
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2014/FY2014_Weapons.pdf


AGAIN. There's a limited budget and costs need to deliver the maximum benefit. These HALF-million dollar machines have been to war-- They're not exactly cherry and heir value sitting in some military junkyard is probably less than their scrap value. Not to mention only about 10% are being scrapped-- likely the models which proved the least durable. I think you're being extremely irrational about this. The war's over; downsize the fleet-- historically speaking its pretty standard protocol.


wasteful and corruption? Just how much money should we spend to bring something back to rot? And what's corrupt about downsizing after war?


Disobeying orders, no matter how many stars one has on their shoulders is not only grounds for dismissal, but court martial. UCMJ Art 92. I get that you hate Obama but in the present case you've passed into frothing madness IMHO.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and your Don Juan the bouncer machismo conceals your true calling as a program-level military appropriations analyst. Audit the following:
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/fy2013_OM_Overview.pdf



There is nothing wrong with HONEST downsizing AFTER a war. However. The war is not over just because the OBAM-IDIOT says so in keeping his promise to bring the troops home. The troops he despises, and has no trouble BETRAYING, every chance he gets.

As for the madness. Obama, and anyone who has their lips glued to his ass because they voted for him, or love him...are the real mad, frothing idiots you failed to mention.
But then. You wouldn't dare TALK ABOUT YOUR FRIENDS that way...log.

[logroller]

Accepting the numbers the Pentagon uses to justify its actions in waste and corruption seems to be a bit naïve . Its like accepting as valid a career criminal's justification for why he engages in illegal acts. Certainly not frothy madness but shows a level of gullibility that sometimes amuses me. But hey maybe I am wrong and your high level analytical judgment reigns supreme despite your insecurity that leads you to insult me with such tripe about my personal revelations of my life.


Maybe it's just my honesty that leads you to feel the need to toss in insults while presenting your genius. You know I have never claimed perfection myself and freely admit that I am wrong sometimes. I just do not admit such until I see it proven to me. Its called integrity. You know the thing that honesty brings you. I tell ya I was about to give serious look at what you were presenting until I saw the insult. Now I believe I'll just dismiss it as window dressing for the true message you sought to convey. Despite your obvious belief of my character and personality, I am not some dumbass country hick. I suggest you should stick to the subject and not toss in insults that reveal your true motive. But hey that just me and its a free world . At least here in USA it is if bamscum doesn't get to complete its destruction. -Tyr
Insults? You have, time and again testamented to your exploits with women and prowess as a bouncer despite any relevance to the topic--"no brag--just fact"...ergo machismo. Not insulting anymore than your unrelenting assertions against the 'blind stupid obamascum fools' etc of those who illuminate the flaws in your logic. Never implied you were stupid, just that you know a lot more about pugilism than balance sheets.
Now I'm a "genius" for pointing out your jumping to a conclusion about post operational logistics and expeditures?
you don't have to be a genius to realize that when combat operations end you don't need as many combat vehicles, and when the ops money runs out, you gotta cut something. I've said as much in my first post... Which was met with 'that'd be fine' but look at all these anecdotes of those who likely just have an axe to grind.'nice try though'

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Insults? You have, time and again testamented to your exploits with women and prowess as a bouncer despite any relevance to the topic--"no brag--just fact"...ergo machismo. Really? Relevant to the subject being discussed how? Do explain--if you can... --Tyr
Not insulting anymore than your unrelenting assertions against the 'blind stupid obamascum fools' etc of those who illuminate the flaws in your logic. That is a reference to a rather large group of citizens in this nation not any one member here.

'blind stupid obamascum fools' Yet you feel it justification for your little attempted put down directed at me. Come on man , don't be so silly as to try to justify tossing in the insult and then try to say it was not a personal insult tossed at me from out of the blue. I didnt fall off a turnip truck yesterday Hoss.
By the way ,exactly what exploits did I detail with women? That I dated a lot in my 59+ years. True but what about it made you think its worth mentioning in a reply on this subject matter? Hoss, my logic is sound= that comment had no justification and was an insult. Who are you trying to kid? -Tyr

[logroller]

There is nothing wrong with HONEST downsizing AFTER a war.
Well if you want to talk about honesty, we'd do well to consider why congress hasn't declared "war" since 1942.



However. The war is not over just because the OBAM-IDIOT says so ...
Legally, according to the 2001 Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists, it sorta does.
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists
So if he determines those responsible for 9/11 are neutralized...



As for the madness. Obama, and anyone who has their lips glued to his ass because they voted for him, or love him...are the real mad, frothing idiots you failed to mention.
But then. You wouldn't dare TALK ABOUT YOUR FRIENDS that way...log.
I don't have any friends that voted for Obama; family, yes, but I can't choose my family. I thought you wanted to discuss wasteful spending; now you want to talk about my friends...Just more of your typical bs. Better watch out or tyr will get onto you about being insulting, he's super consistent that way.

[aboutime]

Well if you want to talk about honesty, we'd do well to consider why congress hasn't declared "war" since 1942.



Legally, according to the 2001 Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists, it sorta does.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists
So if he determines those responsible for 9/11 are neutralized...



I don't have any friends that voted for Obama; family, yes, but I can't choose my family. I thought you wanted to discuss wasteful spending; now you want to talk about my friends...Just more of your typical bs. Better watch out or tyr will get onto you about being insulting, he's super consistent that way.


Log. I would never attempt to talk about something you haven't got. Your Obama is showing.

[aboutime]

Here's some really good reading about Billions being wasted.....

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=e7359436-1572-414e-8acc-0222cad1c7d5

[logroller]

Here's some really good reading about Billions being wasted.....

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=e7359436-1572-414e-8acc-0222cad1c7d5
There were only two related wastes to topic: one was this exact topic, MRAPs, and the ONLY ONE ON THE SCALE OF BILLIONS and the other was Hassan's receiving of pay until he was found guilty. So do you disagree with military member receiving pay until he's find guilty by court martial?

[aboutime]

There were only two related wastes to topic: one was this exact topic, MRAPs, and the ONLY ONE ON THE SCALE OF BILLIONS and the other was Hassan's receiving of pay until he was found guilty. So do you disagree with military member receiving pay until he's find guilty by court martial?

Yep. When the military member is a Proven Terrorist.

[logroller]

Yep. When the military member is a Proven Terrorist.

So you disagree with ucmj code. When you retired did your oath to the constitution retire as well?

[aboutime]

So you disagree with ucmj code. When you retired did your oath to the constitution retire as well?


Nope. The UCMJ you speak of has been adjusted for political reasons, and the war on terror.

If I knew you....while in the military. And you became an enemy of AMERICA, and a traitor who caused the death of anyone. I would still wish the same for YOU.

Wishing, and wanting....are not the same as BEING, or DOING.

So you can patronize someone else to make you feel smarter, and more superior.

And...since you mentioned the UCMJ. Tell me everything you claim to know about it.

[logroller]

Nope. The UCMJ you speak of has been adjusted for political reasons, and the war on terror.

If I knew you....while in the military. And you became an enemy of AMERICA, and a traitor who caused the death of anyone. I would still wish the same for YOU.

Wishing, and wanting....are not the same as BEING, or DOING.

So you can patronize someone else to make you feel smarter, and more superior.

And...since you mentioned the UCMJ. Tell me everything you claim to know about it.
Everything? Well that's a little broad IMO. But Its a piece of legislation that governs military members and like most comprehensive law and its quite complicated; convoluted even; but in a nutshell all members of the us military, even retired in some instances are subject to it-- often in spite of constitutional law that applies to citizens. It includes many of the general civil laws (murder, rape etc) and details when military members are subject to civil law or military law . Like many civil laws it proscribes actions, the punishments for such (from letter of reprimand through execution), the process by which an alleged crime is reported (eg a superior officer must recommend charges), the rights of the suspect (eg to appeal an administrative punishment, a right to an attorney in trial, to confront witnesses, present a defense, innocent until proven guilty, not being discharged while the process ensues including being withheld pay etc), process of court martial (how many jurists, submitting a plea, if it's a court martial the option of a jury of like or above rank, if its capital then it must be jury trial etc).
I can continue, but why--is there something you're curious of? I don't know everything but I can probably find the information you desire.

To the point: your implication of someone receiving pay being unjustified is wrong because because there is ucmj code to prevent someone from being punished financially due to charges being brought forth out of personal vendetta. Now while Hassan's charges weren't the product of capricious prosecution, ucmj law protects against such would it be the case and the rule is just. Were this rule broken it could be used as grounds for an appeal, possibly overturning the verdict and further extending the time before the punishment is meted out.

[aboutime]

Everything? Well that's a little broad IMO. But Its a piece of legislation that governs military members and like most comprehensive law and its quite complicated; convoluted even; but in a nutshell all members of the us military, even retired in some instances are subject to it-- often in spite of constitutional law that applies to citizens. It includes many of the general civil laws (murder, rape etc) and details when military members are subject to civil law or military law . Like many civil laws it proscribes actions, the punishments for such (from letter of reprimand through execution), the process by which an alleged crime is reported (eg a superior officer must recommend charges), the rights of the suspect (eg to appeal an administrative punishment, a right to an attorney in trial, to confront witnesses, present a defense, innocent until proven guilty, not being discharged while the process ensues including being withheld pay etc), process of court martial (how many jurists, submitting a plea, if it's a court martial the option of a jury of like or above rank, if its capital then it must be jury trial etc).
I can continue, but why--is there something you're curious of? I don't know everything but I can probably find the information you desire.

To the point: your implication of someone receiving pay being unjustified is wrong because because there is ucmj code to prevent someone from being punished financially due to charges being brought forth out of personal vendetta. Now while Hassan's charges weren't the product of capricious prosecution, ucmj law protects against such would it be the case and the rule is just. Were this rule broken it could be used as grounds for an appeal, possibly overturning the verdict and further extending the time before the punishment is meted out.



log. Time to dump your bucket. The bucket overflowing with crap. But I bet you really impressed yourself to no end.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

. Better watch out or tyr will get onto you about being insulting, he's super consistent that way. I do not ever recall being reprimanded in anyway by any mod or any of the administration here for personal insults that crossed the line. You seem to confuse my comments made to the public at large with specific comments I make directly too and about a member here. And if none of my "supposed insults" warranted administrated action why bring them up? Are we not allowed to insult the public citizens and/or politicians here? I am pretty damn consistent with my views and my criticisms leveled against opposition. My insulting murdering Islamists, libs, gays, socialists, criminals, etc. will continue as long as I am alive Hoss. I break my principles for no man or no group of people. Perhaps if you backed up your accusation with some examples of quotes coming from me to the insulted members here in which I was doing more than they were.. If not then its merely your mistaken opinion on the matter. Additionally I must ask if I am so guilty why haven't I ever been banned? I have no special status here Jim can ban me just like anybody else. Members get into heated debate and get very uncivil from time to time. If you can show me being worse at it than those I spoke about go for it. Myself, I loved to see some clear examples to back your accusation. If none are presented , I will just assume that you are bloviating for your own amusement. Which is allowed but hardly a thing to be admired IMHO.--Tyr