Foreign Policy

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Iran continues to harass our ships in international waters. They have challenged our ships 31 times so far this year. About time we should start firing on them.

Iran escalates high seas harassment of US Navy - CNNPolitics.com

I think you tell them upfront what is going to happen the next time, in a very public way. I think that something to happen should be about like:

You send out our fast moving craft armed to the gun wells, you warn them you are coming on board, if they fire, you sink them, otherwise, you board them, detain them, and sink one of their ships. Debrief them, and pile them on the remaining ships and send them home.

Film the entire thing, and broadcast it.

Don't scream, shake fists, or rattle sabres...don't kill anyone if possible...simply warn and do. Iran can say whatever the hell they want I guess...what they are doing is dangerous, and needs to stop.
 

BobbyMac

Staff & Stuff
Staff member
Messages
33,950
Reaction score
9,294
I think you tell them upfront what is going to happen the next time, in a very public way. I think that something to happen should be about like:

You send out our fast moving craft armed to the gun wells, you warn them you are coming on board, if they fire, you sink them, otherwise, you board them, detain them, and sink one of their ships. Debrief them, and pile them on the remaining ships and send them home.

Film the entire thing, and broadcast it.

Don't scream, shake fists, or rattle sabres...don't kill anyone if possible...simply warn and do. Iran can say whatever the hell they want I guess...what they are doing is dangerous, and needs to stop.

This. Calmly, clearly and publicly tell them the consequences of any further actions they initiate. Treat them like a child, let it be 100% clear that when they get that azz whipped it was of their own choosing.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Depleted Uranium in the Gulf Wars

Depleted Uranium in the Gulf Wars

The Responsibility of the US in Contaminating Iraq with Depleted Uranium

Depleted Uranium (DU) is a radioactive and chemically toxic heavy metal. If ingested, inhaled, or it enters the human body through wounds or skin, it remains there for decades.

Within the human body the (DU) particles would be a continuous source for emitting alpha particles. With its toxic effects, published research & epidemiological studies have proved that it causes serious health damages to the human body. Some of the damage to the human body is to lymph tissue, kidneys, developing fetuses, neurological system, the bones, lung fibrosis, and an increase in the risk of many types of cancer and malignancies.

Hundreds of tons of (DU) expenditure have been fired & exploded on Iraqi highly populated areas like Basrah, Baghdad, Nasriya, Dewania, Samawa, and other cities.
Exploration programs and site measurements by Iraqi and non-Iraqi researchers all proved the existence of (DU) related contamination over most Iraqi territories.

Iraq’s Minister of Environment admitted in July 23, 2007 in Cairo that “at least 350 sites in Iraq are contaminated with (DU)”. She added that the nation is facing a tremendous number of cancer cases and called for the international community to help Iraq cope with this problem.

A few years after exposure to (DU) contamination, multifold increase of malignancies, congenital malformations, miscarriages, children leukemia, and sterility cases have been registered in suburb areas of Basrah and other surrounding areas. Similar problems appeared in Falluja, where illegal weapons were also used intensively in the 2004 attack of occupation forces on the city. More than two million of the Iraqi population died since 1991 because of the synergic multiple impact of using (DU) weapons, economical sanctions, and the destruction of the health care systems.

To understand how persistent these pollutants are; Soil and dust samples from areas near NL Industries site in Colonie, NY, USA proved containing DU after more than 20 years of the closure of these DU manufacturing industries [19].

A total of 5 to 10 metric tons of DU dust and aerosols settled from air on soil, rooftops, and other surfaces near the plant during its operation. The plant was closed in 1984 and contaminated soil was removed. In 2006, twenty-two years later, dust samples that had been collected from residents in the area proved the existence of DU significantly above the clean up standard. People working near NL Industries also tested positive for DU in their bodies. Results of these tests are being published in the international journal “Science of the Total Environment” [20].

If we compare this case study with Basra DU contamination where (320 tons of DU * 0.65 in Iraqi territories * 0.6 aerosolized) we end up with about 114.80 metric tons of DU aerosols spreading through winds to huge inside Iraq and the Gulf countries’ areas, then pre-suspension of these contaminants to larger areas with each dust and sand storm that hits the area.

In 2003, it is estimated the US & UK armed forces used about (700-800) tons of DU [21]. The aerosolized portion of this amount is about 420 metric tons, a quantity large enough to cover the soil of the whole country after the dispersion of plumes with the previously mentioned mechanisms.


Depleted Uranium


Gulf war vets are very familiar with DU -as are munition factories and Congress.


U.S. Depleted Uranium as Malicious as Syrian Chemical Weapons


Although Iraqi civilians have born the brunt of this awful weapon, American soldiers that served in the Gulf and Iraq War are also suffering from the fallout of depleted uranium. This issue is discussed in-depth by the Campaign Against Depleted Uranium, which campaigns to “ban on the use of uranium in all conventional weapons and weapon systems and for monitoring, health care, compensation and environmental remediation for communities affected by their use.”
 
Last edited:

BobbyMac

Staff & Stuff
Staff member
Messages
33,950
Reaction score
9,294
I'd take some DU in my drinking water if some foreign power overthrew the tyrant who made half my family disappear and gave me and my neighbors a chance to be free.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
I'd take some DU in my drinking water if some foreign power overthrew the tyrant who made half my family disappear and gave me and my neighbors a chance to be free.

A better solution would have been to have that tyrant drink DU.

Is An Armament Sickening U.S. Soldiers?

It takes at least 10 minutes and a large glass of orange juice to wash down all the pills —morphine, methadone, a muscle relaxant, an antidepressant, a stool softener. Viagra for sexual dysfunction. Valium for his nerves.
Four hours later, Herbert Reed will swallow another 15 mg of morphine to cut the pain clenching every part of his body. He will do it twice more before the day is done.
Since he left a bombed-out train depot in Iraq, his gums bleed. There is more blood in his urine, and still more in his stool. Bright light hurts his eyes. A tumor has been removed from his thyroid. Rashes erupt everywhere, itching so badly they seem to live inside his skin. Migraines cleave his skull. His joints ache, grating like door hinges in need of oil.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Military Spending, Armaments and Some Consequences

Military Spending, Armaments and Some Consequences

Trump would spend billions more on military, but for what? experts ask (Reuters)

Short on specifics we don't know what is targeted - new arms systems, armaments, bases, personnel. But his advisor, Senator Jeff Sessions, who sits on the Senate Armed Forces Committee says:
“I believe this lays out a framework for rebuilding the military, and it represents a commitment by Donald Trump to make this a priority."
How the military is recommending this proposed money be spent is not clear. Maybe this spending is just politically-motivated.

In Sessions' Alabama, military bases are prevalent, but one base has closed - Fort McClellan, near Anniston, Alabama due to a "nightmare" environmental cleanup. While the Armed Services own the military institutions, private contractors often run the operations.

Fort McClellan: A Toxic Scandal

From January 1, 1935 to May 20, 1999, Fort McClellan, located near the town of Anniston, Alabama, served as a training ground and military base for the Army Military Police school, the Women’s Army Corps, and the U.S. Army Chemical Corps school, among others. Before it was closed as part of the Army Base Closure and Realignment Committee (BRAC) program, hundreds of thousands of soldiers passed through Fort McClellan. During their time there, they were exposed to toxins and chemical agents, including radioactive compounds cesium-137 and cobalt-60, mustard gas, and nerve agents (used for decontamination training and stored on the base), as well as PCBs from a Monsanto plant in Anniston. Now, years later, many soldiers who were stationed at Fort McClellan have found themselves with diverse and serious health problems, such as cancer, diabetes, fibromyalgia, multiple miscarriages, and genetic mutations that have caused birth defects in the children of these veterans. Some vets are disabled, some have died prematurely. What is being done to help the veterans, and why are there still people being exposed to these poisons today?

Nearby Anniston’s soil and water supply were rendered toxic by PCBs and dioxin emitted by the Monsanto plant between 1929 and 1971, and in parts of the area it is illegal to dig a well. Seventy acres in, around, and downstream of Anniston and the old Monsanto/Solutia plant are listed as a Superfund site by the EPA, and even more land around the sites is contaminated, because groundwater flows in a large area and PCBs don’t observe legal boundaries. In 2003, Monsanto (and its spinoff company, Solutia) settled a lawsuit out of court and agreed to pay $700 million to more than 20,000 residents of Anniston because of the PCB contamination. At the time, these companies were satisfied with the settlement because it helped them to avoid a lawsuit over contamination from polychlorinated biphenyls (an electrical insulator banned in the 1970s), and because they thought it would help the avoid bankruptcy and put them in a better position to address “upcoming liabilities.” Solutia went on to declare bankruptcy in the face of these costs. And worse yet, the Fort McClellan vets are specifically excluded from this settlement.

What are the liabilities that scared Monsanto so badly that they’d voluntarily pay $700 million and consider that a good position to be in? Could it be that they were afraid of facing repercussions from the government and the soldiers of Fort McClellan?

They need not have worried. There has been a bill before Congress, called the Fort McClellan Health Registry Act, since at least 2009, which is occasionally reintroduced only to die every time. All this bill would require, should it become law, is that all the Fort McClellan veterans be notified that the base is toxic, and provide some kind of outreach to help them get tests and care for various illnesses that could be linked to their exposure to the stew of toxins there. Yet somehow, this never comes to pass, and the government is relatively mum about the dangers these veterans are facing. It seems that the McClellan vets usually find out about their predicament through word of mouth and social media sites after wondering for years why they’re so sick.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs admits that exposure to high levels of the toxins stored at the base can cause adverse health effects, but that “there is no evidence of exposures of this magnitude having occurred at Fort McClellan” and that the exposure to the Anniston Monsanto pollution was “not expected to result in an increased cancer risk or other harmful health effects in people living in the neighborhoods outside the perimeter of the former PCB manufacturing facility.” Meanwhile, veterans seeking care at the VA are afraid to reveal that they had been stationed at Fort McClellan, because of reports of the VA routinely denying care or coverage in these cases.

It’s easy to discount the tragic stories of the sick and disabled veterans as hearsay, and to dismiss the news reports as conspiracy theory and anti-government rhetoric when they’re found on fringe and quack websites while the government is claiming minimal effect. But then, it took them a long time to stop calling the Vietnam vets crazy when they talked about Agent Orange, too. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes, and some conspiracies turn out to be true. One thing is for sure: these brave men and women stepped forward to put themselves between their people and danger. To let them sicken and die in this manner should not befit a country like the United States of America. It is time to take responsibility and care for our Fort McClellan veterans just as they took it upon themselves to protect us. To take the cowardly and cheap way out demeans the veterans who have given enough already.

When cleaning up isn't enough: Army trying to rid Anniston Army Depot of toxic TCE

Costs for this cleanup? Taxpayers pay through the military budgets, but also through the EPA's budget. Anniston, Alabmaa is in their Superfund budgeting. An example of some of how taxpayer monies are being spent by the Army:
Since 1978, the Army has spent millions of dollars to dig it up, suck it out of the groundwater with pumps and break it up with hydrogen peroxide injected up to 25 feet into the earth. The Army's efforts have removed tons of contaminated water and clay, most notably in areas on the depot where workers dumped the acid-like waste into unlined ponds and trenches for decades.

If some other type of waste were to blame, that might have been the end of the story. But the Anniston Army Depot is dealing with TCE, a pernicious pollutant that is heavier than water and tends to settle in hard-to-find pockets deep beneath the ground.

But there's no telling where the contamination might pop up from its underground hiding spots or at what concentration.

"You don't know where it's coming from so you don't know where to clean," said Lucius Burton with the Anniston watchdog group, Community Against Pollution.

Despite recent advances in cleanup technology, no available method is ideally suited to getting rid of the remaining TCE. An Army contractor estimated in 2006 that it would take 110 to 3,600 years to make the rest of the tainted groundwater beneath the depot acceptable under the federal drinking standard, depending on which cleanup alternative the Army chooses.

The report concluded that a full cleanup within 100 years ? a magic number in this particular business ? would be "technically impracticable." Too much TCE has seeped into the bedrock, where it is virtually inaccessible to scrubbing systems, the environmental consulting firm Malcolm Pirnie wrote.

The Anniston Army Depot pollution lies in the southeast corner of the depot beneath the Nichols Industrial Complex, the area where workers refurbish tanks, combat vehicles and artillery in warehouses the size of Wal-Mart distribution centers. For six decades, the depot has enlisted TCE as a grease solvent there.

The depot bills itself as the "Pit Crew of the American Warfighter." Another way to put it is that the facility is the Army's salvage operation.

Vehicles and artillery from around the world, including battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, roll through the depot's gates often as grimy and broken hunks of metal. They leave refurbished, ready again for battle.

What happens in between isn't magic. Making a piece of equipment like new again takes hard work, not to mention a special chemical.

After workers disassemble vehicles, tanks and other equipment to their smallest components, those components have to be stripped of dirt and grease. For that, there's nothing better than trichloroethylene.

"It is an excellent cleaning material," said Ron Grant, the depot's director of risk management in the 1980s and 1990s. "They've done a variety of tests on parts to try to evaluate other materials, and they just haven't done the job."

Metal parts ranging from the size of bolts to cannons are attached to a chain and lowered into a piece of equipment, called a vapor degreaser, which works like a huge dishwasher.

Inside, coils heat up a solution containing TCE to about 180 degrees, its boiling point. When the vapors from the roiling chemicals touch the metal parts, grease just melts away. Condensers at the top of the degreaser liquefy the solution again, allowing it to fall back to the bottom and be used again.

To understand why cleaning up the TCE pollution at the depot is so tricky, you have to know how it got there.

Today, the depot trucks off the spent solution to a hazardous waste landfill in Emelle, near the Mississippi border. But until 1981, when new federal rules outlawed the dumping of hazardous waste, the Army got rid of the waste on site.

Workers sprayed liquid waste into lagoons and trenches with nothing but a layer of compacted clay to stop the contamination from leaching into the groundwater. Solid waste was put into 55-gallon drums that workers buried in landfills on the base. The drums leaked, causing more pollution, later tests showed.

The lagoons became a toxic slurry of chemicals, from solvents to acids and from spent cyanide solution to paint residue. Many were open to the elements, including a network of trenches north of the test track that would overflow during heavy rains.

The Army has identified 29 sites across the industrial area in need of restoration.

The mindset about the environment was different in those days, Grant said.

"This stuff was just put in drums and buried," he said. "In 2008, that may seem cavalier. But at that time, that was perfectly acceptable."

The depot was releasing hundreds of pounds of grease and oils a week into nearby waterways, such as Choccolocco and Dry creeks. Grease traps were so clogged they no longer were functioning. The depot's wastewater was teeming with contaminants such as phosphates, chromium and copper.

The article paints the full picture of the cleanup needed. The EPA hires consultants to assess and cleanup the toxic wastes in groundwater, soils, etc. The toxins listed are specific to McClelland and Monsanto. Other include cleanup of depleted uranium, as mentioned above. Why the Fort McClellan Health Registry Act has never been pushed by Sessions or Congress is not clear. The EPA has quite a number of military installations on its Superfund. These are indirect costs to the taxpayers of military funding and military foreign policy.

Monsanto's spinoff, Solutia, who was also involved in the $700 million settlement, filed for bankruptcy on December 17, 2003, in part in response to significant litigation surrounding various products and was sued by the EPA in 2006. In 2008, PCBs were found outside of Anniston High School.

Bayer and Monsanto are currently finalizing an agreement in which Bayer, a German company, will acquire Monsanto for $65-66 billion. How much any on-going ligation on the environmental cleanup and on the harm to nearby residents of military installations will be affected by Monsanto's acquisition is not clear. Usually, the acquiring company - Bayer in this case - assumes all liabilities of the other company, e.g. Monsanto.
 
Last edited:

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Trump would spend billions more on military, but for what? experts ask (Reuters)

Short on specifics we don't know what is targeted - new arms systems, armaments, bases, personnel. But his advisor, Senator Jeff Sessions, who sits on the Senate Armed Forces Committee says:

How the military is recommending this proposed money be spent is not clear. Maybe this spending is just politically-motivated.

In Sessions' Alabama, military bases are prevalent, but one base has closed - Fort McClellan, near Anniston, Alabama due to a "nightmare" environmental cleanup. While the Armed Services own the military institutions, private contractors often run the operations.

Fort McClellan: A Toxic Scandal



When cleaning up isn't enough: Army trying to rid Anniston Army Depot of toxic TCE

Costs for this cleanup? Taxpayers pay through the military budgets, but also through the EPA's budget. Anniston, Alabmaa is in their Superfund budgeting. An example of some of how taxpayer monies are being spent by the Army:










The article paints the full picture of the cleanup needed. The EPA hires consultants to assess and cleanup the toxic wastes in groundwater, soils, etc. The toxins listed are specific to McClelland and Monsanto. Other include cleanup of depleted uranium, as mentioned above. Why the Fort McClellan Health Registry Act has never been pushed by Sessions or Congress is not clear. The EPA has quite a number of military installations on its Superfund. These are indirect costs to the taxpayers of military funding and military foreign policy.

Monsanto's spinoff, Solutia, who was also involved in the $700 million settlement, filed for bankruptcy on December 17, 2003, in part in response to significant litigation surrounding various products and was sued by the EPA in 2006. In 2008, PCBs were found outside of Anniston High School.

Bayer and Monsanto are currently finalizing an agreement in which Bayer, a German company, will acquire Monsanto for $65-66 billion. How much on-going ligation on environmental cleanup and harm to nearby residents of military installations remains is not clear.

There is TCE leaching off Depots...most people figured it is from those folks in the 40s-50s having open dump pits for solvents, grease, oils, etc....it shows up in fruit trees. If you live near an old Depot and you have Fruit Trees, grapes, etc...get your fruit tested....and obviously if you have well water, test it frequently. And depending on the character of the ground you live on, and the water table...that shit can move a long way.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
. If there is a pathway where our weapons match our fighting strategies, and innovation needs, and acquisition efficiency can be realized, I'm sure there is fat. By that I mean let the generals figure out their needs, and let the military pick their contractors to execute, and get congress the hell out acquisitions...there are billions upon billions in losses due to pet programs and stupid special interest deals. The Military is prime ground for ridiculousness because they can hide stuff in "black" programs + people don't understand the technical...its not the "military" as much as it is the abuse of the acquisition process by congress.

The 10 Most Blatantly Wasteful Defense Items In The Recent $1.8 Trillion Spending Bill
(Forbes, 2016)
Preamble: Senator John McCain knows only too well about defense waste – as a decorated Navy pilot and now Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. During passage of the recent $1.8 billion overall spending bill,, with $572 billion for defense, McCain rose on the Senate floor “to call attention to the triumph of pork barrel parochialism in this year’s Omnibus Appropriation bill.” He cast a lonely but striking “no” vote on the bill. As he described the passage process: “here we stand with a 2000-page omnibus appropriations bill, crafted in secret with no debate, which most of us are seeing for the first time this morning.” It was clear that neither he, nor Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, could control the bill.

What was sneaked through?..

Cost of Pentagon weapons systems up a half trillion dollars; delays of more than two years (Washington Post, 2014)

The costs of the Pentagon’s major weapons systems have ballooned nearly half a trillion dollars over their initial price tags, and the 80 programs have average schedule delays of more than two years, according to a report released Wednesday.

The report by the Government Accountability Office came during a congressional hearing in which senators from both parties vented about continued cost overruns, billions of dollars wasted when contracts are canceled and a system that is plagued by a high level of turnover that prevents anyone from being held accountable.

From the GAO report limked in article:
What GAO Found
The Department of Defense (DOD) must get better outcomes from its major
weapon system investments, which in recent years have totaled around $1.5
trillion or more. Recently, there have been some improvements, owing in part to
recent reforms. For example, 50 of the 80 weapon system programs in the
portfolio reduced their total acquisition costs over the past year, and a number of
them also improved their buying power by finding efficiencies. Still, cost and
schedule growth remain significant; 42 percent of programs have had unit cost
growth of 25 percent or more.
DOD’s acquisition policy provides a structured framework for developers to
gather knowledge at appropriate stages that confirms that their technologies are
mature, their designs stable, and their production processes are in control. The
Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 and DOD’s recent “Better
Buying Power” initiatives introduced significant changes that, when fully
implemented, should further strengthen practices that can lead to successful
acquisitions. While recent reforms have benefited individual programs, it is
premature to say there is a trend or a corner has been turned. The reforms still
face implementation challenges and have not yet been institutionalized within the
services.
 
Last edited:

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433

...Congress...

Amazing level of delusional behavior. THEY (Congress) and their pals are the problem better than half the time...SMH. For instance, when you force a systems integrator to abandon best value philosophies, and dictate the use of lesser approaches such as lowest cost technically feasible, or forced patronage...what you do is raise the technical risk significantly...when you screw with technical risk the likely outcome is cost and schedule overruns to fix failures...and here we are.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
...

Cost of Pentagon weapons systems up a half trillion dollars; delays of more than two years (Washington Post, 2014)

The costs of the Pentagon’s major weapons systems have ballooned nearly half a trillion dollars over their initial price tags, and the 80 programs have average schedule delays of more than two years, according to a report released Wednesday.

The report by the Government Accountability Office came during a congressional hearing in which senators from both parties vented about continued cost overruns, billions of dollars wasted when contracts are canceled and a system that is plagued by a high level of turnover that prevents anyone from being held accountable.

From the GAO report limked in article:

Nobody's accountable.

And just how does this differ from the other department's in the Obama Administration ... VA ... IRS ... Secretary of State and the IT Department ... ?

It's S.O.P. for The Transparency Administration.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Nobody's accountable.

And just how does this differ from the other department's in the Obama Administration ... VA ... IRS ... Secretary of State and the IT Department ... ?

It's S.O.P. for The Transparency Administration.

From the link I posted (The 10 Most Blatantly Wasteful Defense Items In The Recent $1.8 Trillion Spending Bill) (Forbes, Jan 2016)


Here are the 10 most blatantly wasteful defense items in the recent $1.8 trillion spending bill.

Preamble: Senator John McCain knows only too well about defense waste – as a decorated Navy pilot and now Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. During passage of the recent $1.8 billion overall spending bill,, with $572 billion for defense, McCain rose on the Senate floor “to call attention to the triumph of pork barrel parochialism in this year’s Omnibus Appropriation bill.” He cast a lonely but striking “no” vote on the bill. As he described the passage process: “here we stand with a 2000-page omnibus appropriations bill, crafted in secret with no debate, which most of us are seeing for the first time this morning.” It was clear that neither he, nor Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, could control the bill.

What was sneaked through?

1 – 3: Aircraft “wish lists.” The military services have an elaborate mechanism each year, with the connivance of Members of Congress, to overspend on costly weapons. It starts with the Defense Department trying to weigh priorities in putting together the official Presidential budget. But, the services can make their own “wish lists” of weaponry for which the President would not budget – an invitation for contractors to lobby Congress.

(1) Lawmakers included $1.33 billion for 11 additional F-35s above and beyond the budget. The F-35 has an incredible list of cost overruns and unsolved system problems. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found, in effect, that the software, the manufacturing processes, the parts, were all unready for prime time.

Also, lawmakers included $1.01 billion for (2) seven additional EA-18G Growler electronic aircraft and (3) five more F/A-18 Super Hornets. The prices of these have risen, and the Presidential budget made tradeoffs as to how many to buy. We bought the extra billion dollars anyway.

4. Enormous non-budgeted “submarine spending fund.” This is a new fund that is meant to keep the super-expensive new nuclear missile submarine outside the normal shipbuilding budget. It’s the “National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund.” Every dollar of the submarine costs, which is a $90 billion – plus program, comes out of the Treasury, just, it will not be weighed against other Navy choices.

5. Approving the Russian rocket engine monopoly. This was McCain’s bete noir. At present, our military satellite launches all make use of the United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Boeing BA +1.24% and Lockheed Martin LMT +0.36%, which use Russian rocket engines. Congress and the Defense Department initially refused to give those companies relief from a new ban on use of the Russian engine after 2019. But, the omnibus spending bill end-ran McCain and set the stage for the companies to stick with Russian engines.

6. Protecting wasteful bases. Periodically, the President and Congress go through a round of base-closing to close facilities that are no longer needed. President Obama asked to start such a round, and officials thought it would save $2 billion/year but Congress would have none of it. Members of Congress hate seeing bases closed in their districts or states. Congress took the extraordinary step, not merely to refuse to start a round, but even to bar studying or considering one.

7. Mississippi’s cutter. The New York Times said it all: “Language inserted into the federal budget over the objection of the Obama administration by Senator Thad Cochran, Republican of Mississippi, directed the Coast Guard to build a $640 million National Security Cutter in Mississippi that the Coast Guard says it does not need.”

8. Maine’s destroyer. Again, the New York Times said it all: A provision “which Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, helped secure, appropriated an extra $1 billion for a Navy destroyer that is likely to be built at Bath Iron Works in her state. The Defense Department had not requested money for the additional ship in this year’s budget.

9.. The grossly excessive “Littoral Combat Ship” (LCS) program. The LCS is a Navy ship meant to be able to sail close to shore. It has had several negative reports by the GAO, and one of the newest LCSs broke down at sea in December. Nonetheless, Austal USA just announced an award within a $3.5 billion LCS contract. So the LCS program is still funded, even though the Secretary of Defense is trying to cut the program back.

10. Last but not least: Guantanamo. A recent estimate was that Guantanamo costs $454 million annually, perhaps $2.7 million per inmate. President Obama asked to close it. Instead, in this bill, Congress put a whole series of barriers in the way.

The President can propose a budget, but Congress can craft the bill and is the only branch that can legislate and appropriate. The President vetoed their defense spending bill once and threatened to veto it again.

Obama vetoes defense bill in high-stakes showdown over spending (Oct 22, 2016)

White House threatens to veto $576B defense spending bill (June 14, 2016)

"The president has vowed to veto it. Why? Because he wants to stop and spend more money on his domestic agenda," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Wednesday. "It's time to put our troops first, time to stop playing political games."

The White House is threatening to veto the House’s $576 billion defense spending bill over concerns that it shortchanges a war fund and doesn’t stick to a bipartisan budget agreement.

“The bill is inconsistent with the [Bipartisan Budget Act], and the administration strongly objects to the inclusion of problematic ideological provisions that are beyond the scope of funding legislation,” reads a statement of administration policy released Tuesday by the Office of Management and Budget. “If the president were presented with H.R. 5293, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”

In opposing the defense appropriations bill, the administration said the money taken from the war fund would pay for equipment the Pentagon did not ask for and a larger force that can’t be sustained.

The bill would also effectively blow up last year’s Bipartisan Budget Act, statement added.

“By gambling with warfighting funds, the bill risks the safety of our men and women fighting to keep America safe, undercuts stable planning and efficient use of taxpayer dollars, dispirits troops and their families, baffles our allies, and emboldens our enemies,” the statement says.

I believe it was also objectionable that the bill established such slush funds like the "submarine spending fund" titled “National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund” (see above) that could escape the restrictions of the Bipartisan Budget Act.

These are the ways Congress blatantly would spend new money over the President's objections, over some services' objections that they don't want that funding, over the Secretary of Defense's objections and that would violate the Bipartisan Budget Act. The defense spending bill crafted by the Congressional Republicans was rejected by Congressional Democratics and did not get the sixty votes to override the President's veto. We can't work towards reducing the deficit and making smart defense choices with this type of Congress that pushes wasteful spending bills that spend taxpayers' money.
 
Last edited:

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
From above:
Lawmakers included $1.33 billion for 11 additional F-35s above and beyond the budget. The F-35 has an incredible list of cost overruns and unsolved system problems. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found, in effect, that the software, the manufacturing processes, the parts, were all unready for prime time.

The F-35: Throwing Good Money after Bad (National Review, July 2015))

Excerpts:
The F-35 program could cripple U.S. defense for decades to come.
“You could argue it [the F-35] was already one of the biggest white elephants in history a long time ago,” stated former U.K. defense chief Nick Harvey in a May interview. Harvey then doubled down, saying there is “not a cat in hell’s chance” the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) would be combat-ready by 2018. While it is noteworthy that a person of Harvey’s stature would level such harsh criticisms, his statement merely reflects the conclusions of reports by the U.S. Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Congressional Research Service, and various independent air-power analysts: The F-35 program is a mess; it is unaffordable and will not be able to fulfill its mission. Indeed, it could be argued that the biggest threat the U.S. military faces over the next few decades is not the carrier-killing Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile, or the proliferation of inexpensive quiet diesel-electric attack subs, or even Chinese and Russian anti-satellite programs. The biggest threat comes from the F-35 — a plane that is being projected to suck up 1.5 trillion precious defense dollars. For this trillion-dollar-plus investment we get a plane far slower than a 1970s F-14 Tomcat, a plane with less than half the range of a 40-year-old A-6 Intruder, a plane whose sustained-turn performance is that of a 1960s F-4 Phantom, and a plane that had its head handed to it by an F-16 during a recent dogfight competition. The problem is not just hundreds of billions of dollars being wasted on the F-35; it is also about not having that money to spend on programs that would give us a far bigger bang for the buck.

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s acting undersecretary of defense for acquisition, has called the way the F-35 program has been conducted “acquisition malpractice.” Lieutenant General Charles Davis, a former program executive officer for the JSF, has stated that the F-35 program was “doomed the day the contract was signed.” The cost growth of the program has been breathtaking. In 1994, the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy versions of the JSF were being projected to cost $28 million, $35 million, and $38 million per plane respectively — $45 million to $61 million in today’s dollars. Flash forward to January 2014, when a detailed analysis of F-35 unit costs — an analysis that does not include the development costs — conducted by senior defense analyst Winslow Wheeler put the current unit costs at $190 million for the Air Force variant and about $270 million for the Marine and Navy variants. A 2013 Congressional Research Service report substantially concurs with Wheeler’s analysis, stating that the F-35’s “unit cost is approaching that of the F-22.”

Claims that such unit costs are only low-rate initial production (LRIP) costs, and that the learning curve will lead to lower unit costs in the near future, are false. Learning-curve cost reductions are dependent on having a stable design and a stable production process that meets statistical quality-control standards. Regarding design, the F-35 will not have a stable design for many years to come. Regarding F-35 manufacturing processes, the May 2015 GAO report reveals that only 40 percent of the manufacturing processes necessary for F-35 production are considered to be meeting statistical standards. According to the report, “The best practice standard is to have 100 percent of the critical manufacturing processes in control by the start of low-rate initial production, which began in 2011 for the F-35 program.” So once again we find the rules being changed or ignored on behalf of the F-35. With LRIP design and manufacturing nowhere near what they should be in terms of stability, any talk about near or even mid-term price reductions has zero credibility.

To summarize, after hundreds of billions of dollars and more than 20 years, we have yet to field one combat-capable plane in the F-35 program, and when we finally do it will not be able to fulfill its mission of maintaining U.S air-power dominance. In contrast, the F-16 program, from the time of its inception, including a competitive bakeoff, to initial operating capability took just five years. For $400 billion — the current estimated acquisition for cost for 2,457 F-35s – one could buy a powerful mix of some 5,000 air-superiority and close-air-support fighters sporting world-class weapons systems. Yet despite the disaster that the F-35 program is, the United States Congress continues to fund it. This can partially be explained by the fact that shutting down the program will cost tens of thousands of high-paying jobs, which have been cleverly distributed in hundreds of congressional districts — though it should be noted that the vast majority of the jobs, about 70 percent, are concentrated in just five states. Further, the direct job to indirect job multiplier of nearly four times that Lockheed Martin used to get to estimates of 125,000 F-35-related jobs is extremely high, and its source is biased. A more historically credible multiplier brings the F-35’s total job impact down to 50–60,000.

These massive job estimates incents Congress to give unwarranted credence to Pentagon and Lockheed Martin assurances that the F-35 program is going to yield a “game changing” fighter and that costs can be brought under control. After all, who wants to oppose jobs? Brazen claims of future F-35 dominance are legion, but real evidence to support such claims is nonexistent. Nonetheless, the fact that such claims are being made by people with a lot of gold braid carries a lot of weight. That it is politically expedient to believe such claims helps explain the F-35 program’s continued existence.

So where does that leave us? In business, there is the concept of a sunk cost. The idea is to disregard past investments, both financial and emotional, and make the decision on whether to continue with the project on the basis of what will yield the most value for the stakeholders going forward. Right now the F-35’s sunk cost is massive in terms of money, time, pride, reputations, and emotion. While it is likely that some of the technologies being incorporated into the F-35 are useful, incorporating these technologies into several superior platforms that optimally address the diverse requirements of the three jet-flying services has a much better net present value. Consequently it is time to pull the plug on the biggest threat to U.S military power — the F-35.

This is only one example of massive defense spending, but this one will run into trillions of dollars. With a debt of $19 trillion and annual federal deficit, we are borrowing money to pay for the F-35, for instance, and should include deficit interest payments in addition to cost overruns, production costs and maintenance costs. How many are we planning to buy? 2,457 The total cost is more than the GDP of Australia.

How Much Does an F-35 Actually Cost?
Up to $337 million—apiece—for the Navy version


In a briefing delivered to reporters on June 9, F-35 developer Lockheed still advertised the cost of airplanes sans engines. Highly respected Aviation Week reported on July 22 that taxpayers put up $98 million for each F-35A in 2013.
In reality, we actually paid $188 million.
Some of these numbers are for the airframe only. In other cases, you get a “flyaway” cost. But in fact, those airplanes are incapable of operative flight. They lack the specialized tools, simulators, logistics computers—and much, much more—to make the airplane useable. They even lack the fuel to fly away.

Federal researchers say Air Force may have to cut back on F-35s (Dec 2015)

Congressional researchers told the Air Force its ambitious modernization program will leave it strapped for money, and it may have to cut the number of F-35s it wants to buy.

A report by the Congressional Research Service said the Air Force has budgeted nearly $73 billion through Sept. 30, 2020, for nine programs, including a new bomber. Plans to purchase F-35s from Lockheed Martin, whose engines are made by Pratt & Whitney, represent 42 percent of that money

The report said the Air Force “is in the midst of an ambitious aviation modernization program, driven primarily by the age of its current aircraft fleets.”

The CRS said four major programs are in procurement – the F-35, the K-46A tanker, the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B), and variants of the C-130 cargo aircraft. They are replacing planes, like the B-1 bomber, that have flown for decades.

“The need to replace several types of aircraft simultaneously poses challenges to future budgets, as the new programs compete with existing program commitments and normal program growth under a restricted service topline,” the report said.

The report said that to meet its modernization requirements the Air Force “may need to defer or delay other programs (including possibly reducing the quantity of aircraft already in procurement), or find other sources of funding to carry all its plans to fruition.”
 
Last edited:

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
From above:


The F-35: Throwing Good Money after Bad (National Review, July 2015))

Excerpts:








This is only one example of massive defense spending, but this one will run into trillions of dollars. With a debt of $19 trillion and annual federal deficit, we are borrowing money to pay for the F-35, for instance, and should include deficit interest payments in addition to cost overruns, production costs and maintenance costs. How many are we planning to buy? 2,457 The total cost is more than the GDP of Australia.

How Much Does an F-35 Actually Cost?
Up to $337 million—apiece—for the Navy version




Federal researchers say Air Force may have to cut back on F-35s (Dec 2015)


"Claims that such unit costs are only low-rate initial production (LRIP) costs, and that the learning curve will lead to lower unit costs in the near future, are false. Learning-curve cost reductions are dependent on having a stable design and a stable production process that meets statistical quality-control standards. Regarding design, the F-35 will not have a stable design for many years to come. Regarding F-35 manufacturing processes, the May 2015 GAO report reveals that only 40 percent of the manufacturing processes necessary for F-35 production are considered to be meeting statistical standards. According to the report, “The best practice standard is to have 100 percent of the critical manufacturing processes in control by the start of low-rate initial production, which began in 2011 for the F-35 program.” So once again we find the rules being changed or ignored on behalf of the F-35. With LRIP design and manufacturing nowhere near what they should be in terms of stability, any talk about near or even mid-term price reductions has zero credibility."


For the purpose of funding discussions this is accurate...however, be very careful. The critical "commodity" we must continue to invest in is the capability to produce technologically superior war fighting implements. By building a bunch of the same shit, we take pride in shit Henry Ford figured out (mass production) and we fail in developing the critical commodity.

Unit costs of LRIP are indeed higher. However, the costs that sink us are building 2 thousand of the same shit. As well, Full Rate Production costs are NEVER as good as advertised. What we are left with is more assets than the people who deploy them want.

There are concepts in building Airframes which allow a consistent platform, and there are modular design approaches which allow us to be able to upgrade entire assemblies w/o touching the frame. The issue we must embrace is how do we have this constant engineering approach and not create personnel stovepipes...ie training. Much of this can be overcome with strong simulation endeavors for training, and it is further mitigated by movement to Drone technologies.

IMHO, we need modernization as an everyday concept, with fewer assets, to net it out. My belief is the costs come WAY down, and the effectiveness of our war fighters remains unrivaled.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Angela Merkel covering Cher's greatest hits...Kicks off tour with "If I could Turn Back Time"...

Angela Merkel admits she regrets open-door migrant policy | World | News | Daily Express

Say nationalist/populist backlash with me...

Want to avoid it...don't do stupid shit that endangers the country, its citizens, and its identity by blindly pursuing globalist policies.

Angela Merkel and the EU are morons...just...that...simple. Folks can get all ass chapped about Brexit, but Brexit doesn't happen without unconscionable / indefensible policies.

Merkel deserved an ass kicking, and the lifetime of regret she gets to carry around like baggage for fucking over her own people...she'll rot form the inside out with guilt, and she deserves to do so.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321

"Claims that such unit costs are only low-rate initial production (LRIP) costs, and that the learning curve will lead to lower unit costs in the near future, are false. Learning-curve cost reductions are dependent on having a stable design and a stable production process that meets statistical quality-control standards. Regarding design, the F-35 will not have a stable design for many years to come. Regarding F-35 manufacturing processes, the May 2015 GAO report reveals that only 40 percent of the manufacturing processes necessary for F-35 production are considered to be meeting statistical standards. According to the report, “The best practice standard is to have 100 percent of the critical manufacturing processes in control by the start of low-rate initial production, which began in 2011 for the F-35 program.” So once again we find the rules being changed or ignored on behalf of the F-35. With LRIP design and manufacturing nowhere near what they should be in terms of stability, any talk about near or even mid-term price reductions has zero credibility."


For the purpose of funding discussions this is accurate...however, be very careful. The critical "commodity" we must continue to invest in is the capability to produce technologically superior war fighting implements. By building a bunch of the same shit, we take pride in shit Henry Ford figured out (mass production) and we fail in developing the critical commodity.

Unit costs of LRIP are indeed higher. However, the costs that sink us are building 2 thousand of the same shit. As well, Full Rate Production costs are NEVER as good as advertised. What we are left with is more assets than the people who deploy them want.

There are concepts in building Airframes which allow a consistent platform, and there are modular design approaches which allow us to be able to upgrade entire assemblies w/o touching the frame. The issue we must embrace is how do we have this constant engineering approach and not create personnel stovepipes...ie training. Much of this can be overcome with strong simulation endeavors for training, and it is further mitigated by movement to Drone technologies.

IMHO, we need modernization as an everyday concept, with fewer assets, to net it out. My belief is the costs come WAY down, and the effectiveness of our war fighters remains unrivaled.

Thanks for your insight, phgreek.

To add a couple of points, one of the selling points of the F-35 is that 70% of its production could be duplicated for all services. With all the changes over the past decade or so, that's down to 30%.

Monitoring Costs - I saw one stat that said we spend $70 million and employ over 3,000 people to monitor all the changes and specifications throughout the development and production phases. Let us know if that is correct.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Thanks for your insight, phgreek.

To add a couple of points, one of the selling points of the F-35 is that 70% of its production could be duplicated for all services. With all the changes over the past decade or so, that's down to 30%.

Monitoring Costs - I saw one stat that said we spend $70 million and employ over 3,000 people to monitor all the changes and specifications throughout the development and production phases. Let us know if that is correct.

No service will accept something that is not in lock step with its mission as defined on day x. By that I mean, folks may look at the high level word changes to component missions as non-meaningful. I assure you there are people who take those words and turn those into performance requirements...very detailed performance requirements...and those get articulated as modification programs...so now we aren't just talking about fact of life changes that come form a systems engineering process...we've moved the fence...thats different.


not sure if I can say if monitoring costs are correct. Not an F35 guy per se.

What I do know is 1) when initial contract awards are made, the government rarely nails the requirement so well that there aren't some things that pop up...ie there are some technical risks assumed duee to fact of life changes. Engineering change orders in the development cycle tend to reflect normal cost of getting from component design to integrated design, and of course various assembly and prototype builds. 2) change orders in production are also normal, as the design collides with the real world manufacturing...so we go from "as designed" to "as built". All of those changes require review by Subject matter experts ranging from materials engineers to environmental engineers. Then there is a process for updating engineering drawings, and product configuration data...all of that goes through a configuration control board. These processes have been streamlined/automated over the years...but it still requires a ton of work, and many hands.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Waste, Greed, and Fraud: The Business that Makes the World’s Greatest Army (Harvard Political Review)

How did we get to this point? In the years following the 9/11 attacks, the United States and its allies have fought a continuous war on terror. The taxpayer tab for the war totals about $5 trillion, or $16,000 per person, according to Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies. This was, according to Hartung, the “biggest Pentagon spending buildup in history since World War II.” This spending has not only gone into strengthening the U.S. military itself, but also to improving the allied Afghan, Iraqi, and neighboring Middle Eastern security forces. The idea has been to arm Middle Eastern countries to enable them to secure their own territories.

Reports from the Inspector Generals’ offices of Iraq and Afghanistan estimate that the U.S. military has lost $60 billion to waste and fraud in Iraq, $100 billion to Afghan reconstruction efforts, and billions more in wasted equipment either burned or left behind after the withdrawal of forces. Part of the problem may be that the Pentagon has 1.7 million contracts open, which makes oversight difficult, if not impossible. “In Iraq and Afghanistan there was huge waste fraud and abuse on the part of companies like Halliburton and others that [these companies] were able to get away with in the fog of war because there wasn’t enough scrutiny into what they were doing,” said Hartung. “In some cases billions of dollars went missing; [contractors] were overcharging for everything from simple tasks like doing the laundry for the troops and [providing] meals to building shoddy facilities for schools and things for water and electricity.

Nevertheless, even if the Pentagon fails to stop defense cuts, contractors are still looking at hundreds of billions in purchases for the Middle East and Africa through 2019 through the DoD’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, a government-to-government sales agreement. A sliver of those billions come from Iraq, where the United States is preparing to ship 175 tanks, 15 Hercules tank recovery vehicles, 55,000 rounds of ammunition for the tanks, and hundreds of millions worth of Humvees, howitzers, and trucks. During a conference call with analysts, Theodore Karasik, director of research and consultancy at the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, stated that “every country in the Middle East is shopping for some type of military equipment.”

The new conflict in the Middle East is yet another example of the perpetual war that the United States seems to find itself in. As the late Gore Vidal pointed out in his book, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got to Be So Hated, the United States always appears to find a new enemy to attack to perpetuate controlled wars, or small conflicts that keep dollars flowing to sustain the defense industry. As Hartung put it, the overriding sentiment in the government has been that “we need [the money] to defend the country, so we can’t ask too many questions.” When there are calls to cut the defense budget, to withdraw and stop intervening in world conflicts, or to use older equipment available, contractors and lobbyists respond by arguing that the country “needs a new generation of equipment,” or that the Pentagon needs to continue a steady stream of purchasing in order “sustain the defense industrial base” to prepare for the next war.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
WINDFALLS OF WAR (International Consortium of Investigative Journalism)

A comprehensive examination of companies that won contracts that are not competitively bid for work in Iraq and Afghanistan — and of their campaign contributions, led by General Electric and Vinnell Corporation (the former Northrup Grumman).

These contracts have tripled in size since 9/11, to $140 billion. Who loses? The taxpayer.

Methodology: Windfalls of War
 
Last edited:

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,042
Reaction score
1,920
From the link I posted (The 10 Most Blatantly Wasteful Defense Items In The Recent $1.8 Trillion Spending Bill) (Forbes, Jan 2016)




The President can propose a budget, but Congress can craft the bill and is the only branch that can legislate and appropriate. The President vetoed their defense spending bill once and threatened to veto it again.

Obama vetoes defense bill in high-stakes showdown over spending (Oct 22, 2016)

White House threatens to veto $576B defense spending bill (June 14, 2016)







I believe it was also objectionable that the bill established such slush funds like the "submarine spending fund" titled “National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund” (see above) that could escape the restrictions of the Bipartisan Budget Act.

These are the ways Congress blatantly would spend new money over the President's objections, over some services' objections that they don't want that funding, over the Secretary of Defense's objections and that would violate the Bipartisan Budget Act. The defense spending bill crafted by the Congressional Republicans was rejected by Congressional Democratics and did not get the sixty votes to override the President's veto. We can't work towards reducing the deficit and making smart defense choices with this type of Congress that pushes wasteful spending bills that spend taxpayers' money.


Too long; Obama's fault.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Syria: 2nd hospital destroyed by bombs; 7 killed, more trapped

images
 

calvegas04

Well-known member
Messages
11,866
Reaction score
8,441
A U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer was targeted on Sunday in a failed missile attack from territory in Yemen controlled by Iran-aligned Houthi rebels, a U.S. military spokesman told Reuters, saying neither of the two missiles hit the ship.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-navy-ship-targeted-failed-missile-attack-yemen-033817490.html

Of course obama will condemn this if he even says anything about it, the US is being respected less and less every day because of the obama administration
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
A U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer was targeted on Sunday in a failed missile attack from territory in Yemen controlled by Iran-aligned Houthi rebels, a U.S. military spokesman told Reuters, saying neither of the two missiles hit the ship.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-navy-ship-targeted-failed-missile-attack-yemen-033817490.html

Of course obama will condemn this if he even says anything about it, the US is being respected less and less every day because of the obama administration

I know we can trace where these were fired from, damn near to a gnats ass. Love to hear the story of why we did not return fire while their missiles were still in flight. Paint it as anti missile tactic, that failed...and oops hit right where their missiles came from instead of taking out the missiles in flight...damn lowest bidder problem...tragic.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Yemen's a mess-

apparently the Houthi's are denying responsibility but if it was them it was in retaliation for a Saudi airstrike that his a funeral and killed 130:

Yemen's Houthis respond to air strike with missile attack | Reuters

I really think we're on the wrong side of this one.

I don't pretend to know the enemy(s) as well as I should I guess...Being as, if the Saudis drilled them, and arguably did so in a way that ...yea...might make folks more angry than normal. I guess you could assume we were involved somehow??? So that justifies launching at our ships utilizing international waters.

Again...I am of the attitude that it is NOT an issue of determining if the missiles had a chance, or we knew they weren't going to hit us. Each deployed system has a duty to those that will serve later to ensure its safety. When you survive an attack, celebrate, for sure...but I think we need to start to lament opportunities to prevent the next one....and be far more concerned about that...than fuss over determining if our response to aggression might be viewed or portrayed a certain way...we know doing nothing certainly asks for more. We were not on their soil, and for as much as I try to understand the point of view that we look the part of imperial power while on their soil, I cannot, and will not ever extend that logic to times when we occupy neutral space.
 

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,042
Reaction score
1,920
I don't pretend to know the enemy(s) as well as I should I guess...Being as, if the Saudis drilled them, and arguably did so in a way that ...yea...might make folks more angry than normal. I guess you could assume we were involved somehow??? So that justifies launching at our ships utilizing international waters.

Again...I am of the attitude that it is NOT an issue of determining if the missiles had a chance, or we knew they weren't going to hit us. Each deployed system has a duty to those that will serve later to ensure its safety. When you survive an attack, celebrate, for sure...but I think we need to start to lament opportunities to prevent the next one....and be far more concerned about that...than fuss over determining if our response to aggression might be viewed or portrayed a certain way...we know doing nothing certainly asks for more. We were not on their soil, and for as much as I try to understand the point of view that we look the part of imperial power while on their soil, I cannot, and will not ever extend that logic to times when we occupy neutral space.

Yeah, the US is still considering retaliatory strikes:

Pentagon weighs retaliation after attack on US ships in Red Sea – Talk Media News

Obviously I don't know what intel they have and had at the time of the attack and what went into their decision to not fire back. Anytime US troops are deployed they have the right to defend themselves when they come under attack regardless of the underlying justness of their cause- I didn't mean to imply otherwise. If I had to guess, we probably didn't shoot right away because of concerns over civilian casualties. It doesn't sound like these were high tech weapons systems, but again without access to the intel I have no idea what went into the decision making process.

My point was more that it's becoming increasingly obvious that Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen is beyond the pale, and our role in facilitating it is troubling. It secured a massive arms deal for us-1.16 billion dollars (I believe by Trump's mercantilist standards that makes it a good deal) and keeps the Saudi's in our camp but outside of that it's a lot of civilian blood for no obvious geopolitical gain.
 
Last edited:

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Making a Killing: The €1.2 Billion Arms Pipeline to Middle East (Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP)

Rising from the tarmac of Nikola Tesla airport, the hulking aircraft pierced the Serbian mist to head towards Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

It was one of at least 68 flights that in just 13 months transported thousands of tons of Central and Eastern European weapons and ammunition to Middle Eastern states and Turkey which, in turn, funneled arms into brutal civil wars in Syria and Yemen, the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) has found. The flights are just a small part of €1.2 billion in arms deals between the countries since 2012, when parts of the Arab Spring turned into an armed conflict.

Meanwhile, over the past two years, as the thousands of tons of weapons fly south, hundreds of thousands of refugees have fled north from the conflicts that have killed more than 400,000 people. But while Europe has shut down the refugee route, the billion euro pipeline sending arms by plane and ship to the Middle East remains open – and very lucrative.
 
Top