Posted on 11/09/2005 4:49:02 PM PST by jmc1969
The U.S. military plans to leave thousands of trucks and combat vehicles for the Iraq Army.
Officials said the Defense Department has approved a plan in which the U.S. military would not withdraw from Iraq together with much of the equipment deployed in that country since 2003. Instead, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps would transfer the vehicles and weaponry to the Iraq Army.
U.S. commanders and their Iraqi counterparts have been discussing the transfer of U.S.-origin weaponry and vehicles, officials said. They said the transfer to the Iraq Army would take place in stages.
"We have discussed what our ability will be in the long run to leave behind some additional equipment for them over time, so that they have the same capabilities that we do, or very nearly," Maj. Gen. William Webster, commander of Multinational Division, Baghdad, said.
(Excerpt) Read more at menewsline.com ...
I'm sure it's a minority, but we've even seen it at this forum. The attitude is to just annex whatever land is desireable and defend it forever through necessary means.
"What's the matter? Don't want to pay for the war?"
I seem to remember the idea being bandied about..."We can use the Iraqi oil revenues to finance the war..."
Wishful thinking.
The taxpayers are subsidizing the oil companies one more time
Yeah, the big bad oil companies, on whom you depend to provide cheap fuel for gas-guzzling trucks. Guess we are also subsidizing American car-makers who can't bring themselves to build anything else. You will notice that GM is close to closing show because 30 years of experience has taught them nothing. And, oh yes, the building contractors as will continue to pave over America in a futuile effort to provide enough roads for the three- four and fives cars in our driveways. All subsidized by the tax-payer.
Nice rant...but it's a waste of time.
Ask yourself if Saddam's Iraq just exported walnuts and not oil...would we be there?
I thought not.
I don't think oil companies are inherently "bad"...
You still can not argue that our military (paid for by US tax dollars) are not the protectors of the oil companies.
You have a strange fixation with "blame". I am not blaming anyone...or any company. I merely stated that the US taxpayer subsidizes the oil companies.
Of course they subsidize the oil companies, just as they subsidize most of American business and always have. It started with Alex Hamilton's funding of the national debt. Henry Clay's American system was built on the principle of subsidy. The navy exists to protect American traders and the main business of the state department is American business. The interstate highways system is a subsidy for commerce carriers just as once Congress gace huge tracts of public lands to subsidize the railroads. Capitalism has always been a partnership of government and p[rivate companies, with the wise government being smart enough not to squeeze the gold goose too hard. I agree with you that government is bloated, and so is the management of private companies and so is the average customer. Adam Smith recognized that human beings are greedy and that the market mechanism should be allowed to reward those who are ambitious and to punish both the timid and the greedy. But you can't have a market without a policeman and you can't have a market without middlemen. It is up to the consumer to pay the salary of the former and to pay the commission of the latter. Sometimes each will get more than he deserve, but politics will reduce the cut of the former and the market will punish the latter.
XM8 is cancelled.
Good post,
I agree with 99% of it.....with the exception of the following"
"It is up to the consumer to pay the salary of the former and to pay the commission of the latter."
Since (income) taxation is not voluntary, I would prefer to get a tax credit for the percentage of the military budget needed to keep the oil lines open. The fair way to do it would be for the oil companies to hire private armies. This would shift the tax liability of the consumer (income tax)...and give the consumer the CHOICE of paying 6 or 8 dollars extra tax on his / her gasoline. It's all about choices. I know, I know...it's a nutty idea... but it would bring to the forefront the REAL cost of oil.
Hard to factor out the cost of keeping the oil supply flowing. What infuriates me is the ability of "moderates' to block drilling in the Arctic. What I cannot understand is why the Senator from Alaska is opposed to drilling in what she surely knows is a huge frozen mudflat. Aren't the oil companies offering her enough kickback?
We have serious maintenance problems with them there. As units (large units) have rotated back and forth, they have drug most of their equipment with them. Local papers here have shown rows and rows of Bradley Fighting Vehicles on the dock at Beaumont, in preparation for the now ongoing deployment of the 4th Infantry Division (The guys who got Saddam!) for their second deployment to Iraq since 2003.
Not really, the only new thing coming down the pike are various versions of the Stryker and a farther along the line, the Future Combat System. Both of those are in many ways inferior to the Bradleys and Abrams they will replace. Oh their electronics are better, and they are much lighter, but their armor, off road mobility, and their firepower is the same or generally less. For example the Stryker Mobile Gun Sytem will have the 105mm gun of the M1 not the 120 mm smoothbore of the M1A1. The 105 is out ranged by many threat weapons systems, such as the main guns of the Chinese and Russian main battle tanks. Then their is the little problem of the Stryker flipping over if the gun is fired other than nearly directly aft or forward.
It's cheaper to leave the stuff there, than ship it back. Lots of logistics involved.
Same way we do, send it to a Depot. In their case the Depot might be in Egypt, which IIRC produces Abrams tanks and other US equipment. They'll probably have to use contractor maintenance for a while until they can get some maintenance troops trained, which can take longer than training Americans because of the lower quality enlistees, from the standpoint of general educational level and prior technical knowledge.
So what's with all the reports of the troops loving the Stryker?
Annex? lol...I could almost bet- that your theory is a mutation of loathing for Abraham's children.
You'd bet wrong, then.
lol...a "could almost bet" is almost never a sure thing, don't ya know? By the by, your profile gave me a good grin- thanks.
That's not paying for the war; that's a free giveaway. If they can pay for it, why should we?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.